Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MIDLAND METRO BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 22 April.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 22 April.

ELECTION EXPENSES

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the expenses of each candidate at the General Election of April 1992 in the United Kingdom as transmitted to the returning officers pursuant to the Representation of the People Act 1983, and of the number of votes polled by each candidate, the description of each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the number of electors, the number of postal votes and the number of rejected ballot papers.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Police Reform

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what impact he expects his proposals for police reform to have on the county of Cumbria.

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received to date on his proposed police reforms.

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on his recent proposals for the reform of police authorities.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): My proposals would improve the effectiveness and performance of the police forces in Cumbria and elsewhere and thereby improve the value for money that we get from them. I have so far received a few representations from hon. Members, members of the police service and others. I propose to issue a White Paper setting out the details of my proposals before the summer. I will continue to listen to the views of all those concerned with improving the performance of the police service.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why should meddling Conservative appointees appointed by the Secretary of State be appointed to the Cumbria police authority when they surely serve only to undermine the authority and the excellent work being done by our chief constable? Has the Home Secretary no faith in local institutions which can make adequate appointments and carry out the responsibilities that the public expect of them?

Mr. Clarke: I do not make appointments to public bodies for which I am responsible on a purely party political basis. The hon. Gentleman's question is indicative of the attitude of many Labour Members. When police authorities are mentioned, all that they can think about is whether they are of their own political persuasion. I have every confidence in the local delivery of police forces. That is why I intend to create stronger local authorities, whose presence will be more visible to the inhabitants of Cumbria. I will also give them more autonomy in handling resources from central Government. I will lift from the shoulders of the Cumbria police authority and others many of the detailed restraints currently imposed upon them by me and by the Home Office.

Mr. Evennett: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's determination to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the police. However, I urge him to look again at the issue of London. Does he agree that London is different from the rest of the country in many ways and should, therefore, be treated differently in his reforms?

Mr. Clarke: There is a question about London further down the Order Paper which I shall answer. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is emphatically yes. He and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have already


made their views known to me informally about my first proposals. I accept that the Metropolitan police, who cover the capital city and parts of the surrounding counties, are quite different from the rest of the country. I will carefully consider representations about the nature of the new police authority which I propose to establish for the Metropolitan police.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are a great many people who could be appointed to police authorities could bring a vast range of experience for whom serving as councillors or magistrates is not an option? Will he make it clear when he publishes his White Paper that he is looking not just for people with business experience but for people with experience in running police liaison panels, victim support schemes and crime prevention schemes?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In considering people to serve on a police authority, one must bear in mind that not every man or woman able to make a contribution in that way can also spare the time to be elected to the local county council or to sit in a local magistrates court. People who might want to sit on a police authority should not be judged, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would judge them, on whether they are the right party political colour. [Interruption.] The Labour party's defence of local authority membership of police authorities is because, all too often, it sees local authority appointments to committees of this kind as a means of party patronage. We are concerned with strengthening the police authorities and improving the effectiveness of the police service. I hope that the Labour party will eventually take a more enlightened view of the undoubted need to strengthen the effectiveness of the police service.

Mr. Martlew: Earlier this year, the Cumbria police force axed four senior police posts and asked the Secretary of State if it could spend the money thus saved on seven constables, but he refused. Will he change his mind today and allow us to have extra police in Cumbria to fight the rising tide of crime?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has described the existing situation, and I regard that feature of it as positively daft. That is why, in my recent statement to the House, I announced my intention to change that situation so as to give far more discretion to the local police force to determine how it spends its resources and what balance it strikes between men and resources. We need stronger police authorities with unfettered discretion to handle money in that way and I propose to set them up. It is the normal instinct of the Labour party to be against any reform or change of any kind to any public service. I hope that at least this small detail of my reforms will get the hon. Gentleman's support.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the effectiveness of police reforms in ensuring that the police can combat crime better will be a matter not merely of organisation but of police operational priorities? Is he aware of the Audit Commission report which points out that 20 per cent. of police time was spent on administration and 25 per cent. on non-crime priorities such as traffic management?

Should that not be investigated when the reform proposals are being considered so as to ensure that the police are more actively concerned in beating crime?

Mr. Clarke: It is important that we do, and the police service does, exactly what my hon. Friend proposes. We need to be clearer about what the priorities of the police service are, and what the local public expect of it. We then need to reflect those priorities in the disposition of manpower and resources in the locality and to measure performance in meeting the first priorities of the police service. For that reason, in addition to the White Paper that I am producing, I have other studies under way into exactly how we should prioritise the different duties imposed by the public on the police service. The service also needs to be better organised so that it can react to those priorities, dispose of its resources accordingly and then account to the local public and the general public for its performance.

Mr. Blair: Is not one part of an effective police service the provision of an efficient police and prison escort service to and from the courts? In relation to Group 4 Total Security Ltd., which has taken over certain police and prison functions, will the Secretary of State confirm that, in the past few days, not merely have four prisoners gone missing, but at Leicester prison Group 4 turned up with the wrong van and the wrong documentation and then could not get through to headquarters because the line was engaged? Is he aware that in Derby, court hearings have been delayed because prisoners have turned up late, in Nottingham, court hearings have been postponed because Group 4 vans have got lost in the city's one-way system and that yesterday, a Group 4 van carrying prisoners crashed into a police car outside a police station? Is it not about time the Secretary of State took a grip on his Department and the prison escort service and started to run a service with some regard to public safety rather than one that is like something out of an Ealing comedy?

Mr. Clarke: Escorts between prison and the courts are frequently an occasion for escapes. In the contract area of Group 4 alone, last year more than 50 prisoners escaped during escort—an average of more than one a week—but the Labour party took no interest whatever in that. It could not care less so long as prisoners are escaping from public sector workers. Suddenly, when a contract is taken out by Group 4, it pays attention to every crash of every vehicle, every escape of every prisoner and every slip on the paperwork. If we have aroused the Labour party's interest in the quality of the service provided when escorting between prison and court, we shall have made at least one modest advance. The fact is that the Labour party is obsessed simply with whether a driver belongs to the right trade union. Until it can lift its thoughts about the criminal justice system above that pathetic local Labour party executive committee level, it will have nothing to contribute on this front.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage devolved management within the police service.

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on his intentions to allow chief constables to manage their own budgets.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in his statement on 23 March, he intends to give police authorities and police forces greater freedom to decide for themselves how best to spend their money.

Mr. Lidington: Is my hon. Friend aware that local management of police forces has been broadly welcomed in the Thames valley area by the police service and by the general public? 'Will he and his colleagues press on from that position and ensure that the performance indicators that he and the Home Secretary are now planning can be applied at local area level so that the public know that not just chief constables but area commanders are making proper and efficient use of resources committed to their stewardship?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to give more freedom to chief constables and police authorities to deploy the resources at their disposal, and that means devolving responsibility within police forces from headquarters to local units. National standards and objectives will be translated into local objectives which mean something to the local community and by which those local units can be measured.

Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend will not be surprised that in Billericay, where we are well known for our dedication to private enterprise and personal responsibility, the chief superintendent welcomes the moves announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but will my chief superintendent be freer of paperwork imposed on him by the Home Office so that, instead of pushing paper, he can be out catching crooks? In addition, will he be able to subcontract out more of his detective work to the Maigrets and Miss Marples of this world?

Mr. Wardle: There will be greater freedom for chief officers to manage—that is the important thing—with much of that delegated to local level. We want to put the nearly £6,000 million a year spent on the police to the best possible use with as little red tape as possible. Where minor functions can be subcontracted, they will be, leaving the basic policing to the police.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister agree that the first principle of a proper arrangement for delegation is to recognise that it is the chief superintendent on the ground who has the best knowledge of the resources required to ensure effective policing locally? If so, will the Minister please stop sending hon. Members such as myself misleading replies about the actual reduction in police officers that has occurred in Greenwich? Will he ensure that the real representations made by local police and representatives of the community are met by a positive response to build up numbers to tackle crime effectively in Greenwich and elsewhere in south-east London?

Mr. Wardle: From what the hon. Gentleman says, I take it that he is in favour of the reform proposals, as it will then be up to the chief police officers themselves in the police authorities to decide precisely what the strength of their force should be within their cash-limited resources.

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister explain why, when chief officers have decided that resources should go local and have set up special urban crime schemes, such as those in

my constituency in Armley and Bramley, when they have proved to be successful after a year of operation the Government withdraw the funding?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman will already have heard, if he has followed the proposals, that it will be up to the chief police officers to decide precisely how funding will be deployed. If there is a particular scheme on which a chief police officer wishes to place emphasis in any local area, he can so do. It will be up to the chief police officer and the police authority to determine priorities.

European Parliamentary Constituencies

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements he intends to make for the additional European parliamentary constituencies.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): My right hon. and learned Friend is currently consulting colleagues on this matter. Once proposals are formulated, we will consult formally the Opposition parties.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the parliamentary boundary commissioners rightly enjoy an enviable reputation for impartiality? Will he ensure that a similar system is established to create the new constituencies, and give an assurance that twixt the initial announcement and implementation there will be ample time for representations to be made?

Mr. Lloyd: I can assure my hon. Friend on both points. We shall not necessarily use the boundary commissioners to propose the new boundaries, because they are very much occupied with the parliamentary boundaries, but we will want to have similarly independent recommendations for the new Euro-constituencies. We are determined that there will be an opportunity for public consultation, although it will be constrained by a comparatively tight timetable.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister will have seen press speculation that the additional seats will be available on a proportional representation basis in order to secure the votes of the Liberal Democrats for the Maastricht treaty. May we take it that there will be no question of adopting the single transferable vote system, or will the Minister follow the logic of that and tell his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he should follow it, too?

Mr. Lloyd: I am always sceptical about reports in the newspapers. We will not announce our final proposals until they have been formulated. We will then discuss them with leaders of the Opposition parties.

Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that where areas are distinctive historic entities, such as Cornwall, there is a case for making them Euro-constituencies in their own right rather than the present situation of unholy alliances?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the basis on which we want to make the new Euro-constituencies is a traditional one. We want Euro-seats of comparatively the same size in terms of population, but taking into account geography and other local connections. No doubt the body making recommendations will bear those thoughts in mind.

Mr. Allen: The Government are clearly afraid that their own Back Benchers will do to the European boundaries Bill what they are trying to do to the Maastricht Bill. Will the Minister take the opportunity to allay the suspicions of the House that the European constituencies will be redrawn not by the independent and much-respected boundary commissions, but by a hand-picked group of Home Office officials, with all the potential for gerrymandering that that allows? With the next European election so close, the House has a right to know when the Bill will be brought before it.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman obviously prepared his question before he came into the Chamber because I have already dealt with it. I said that the new Euro-constituency boundaries would be recommended by an independent body. I also said that we would be discussing the way forward and the timetable with the Opposition parties.

Criminal Justice Act 1991

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had from magistrates about the workings of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): The representations I have received from magistrates about the Act have covered concerns about the unit fines scheme and matters relating to sentencing under section 29.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that many magistrates in my constituency will be delighted by the assurances given in the House yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that he is prepared to look at the workings and non-workings of the Criminal Justice Act 1991—particularly in relation to unit fining, which appears to be fine in principle but in practice is working more as a punishment for wealth than one for crime?
Some courts are not able to look at the whole career of a particular criminal before passing sentence. It seems that the system is working to protect the very people we are trying to clobber—the persistent offenders. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will look urgently at the possibility of removing the magistrates from the handcuffs that they are currently wearing, so that we can put the handcuffs on the people who deserve to have them put on—the persistent offenders?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend articulates the feeling of many of our hon. Friends about the Criminal Justice Act 1991. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made it clear at the Dispatch Box yesterday that he intends—and he has my full support—to look hard at some of the problems with unit fines and also at section 29. However, may I say to my hon. Friend, with the same vigour as he put his point to me, that I hope that he will ask magistrates to look carefully at the flexibility that already exists under the unit fines scheme, which enables magistrates to meet their criticisms of the present system.

Mr. Canavan: Have there been any complaints about the criminal justice system breaking down after the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about the failure of the privatised prisoner escort service? After the fiasco of the so-called Group 4 security

system, will the Minister admit that the privatisation experiment has been a failure, or does he intend to tell us that it is all part of the Government's plan to reduce the prison population?

Mr. Jack: Hearing questions like that is like watching the dinosaurs come back to life. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the fact that prisoners escape is not a new phenomenon, but the dialogue of the deaf opposite did not listen to that salient point. Only now, when a new company running a new and complex service takes over those responsibilities, for which there is a very good reason, do the Opposition take any interest. I ask the hon. Gentleman to watch developments.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that we got the principle of unit fines and previous convictions fundamentally and absolutely wrong? Is it possible that we got it wrong because at that time hon. Members on both sides of the House were obsessed with the change of Prime Minister?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend brings his own particular analysis to bear on how we got ourselves into this particular situation. The Criminal Justice Act had a long run-in, during which people could have contributed to the debate. There was a consultation document in 1988, a White Paper and a long parliamentary debate. Eventually, the House agreed the measure which came before it. It is important now to concentrate on the positive side and on our assurance that we are looking both at section 29 and at unit fines and that, if necessary, changes will be made.

Juvenile Crime

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he will take to counter juvenile crime.

Mr. Jack: The Government's measures to deal with juvenile crime will be further extended by the contents of my right hon. and learned Friend's statement to the House on 2 March, which commits us to developing new policies to deal with persistent juvenile offenders.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the problem is not so much the growth in the number of juvenile offenders as in the number of persistent offenders? In Leicestershire, for example, 28 persistent offenders have committed 2,057 offences—73 offences each—in the past 18 months. It is obvious, therefore, that the courts do not have the power to deal with juvenile crime as they should and that there is no way in which the Government are helping parents, governors of schools, teachers and others to cope with persistent juvenile offenders.

Mr. Jack: The hon. and learned Gentleman's enthusiasm to put his point to us is a ringing endorsement of the contents of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's statement. That is the whole thrust of what the secure training order is all about. It deals with matters connected with education, offending behaviour and training for the outside world. Juvenile crime in the hon. and learned Gentleman's part of Leicestershire is also being combated by our safer cities initiative and by many of the diversion projects, such as the north Braunston


motor project. That is helping to alleviate some of the problems caused by young people and to deal positively with their potential entry into criminality.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are surplus places for juvenile delinquents in special residential schools? Will he amend the secure accommodation regulations and tell magistrates, town halls and parents to send more juvenile delinquents to those special schools?

Mr. Jack: With his usual astuteness, my hon. Friend has been studying the contents of my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. He will have seen reference in it to making various orders with a requirement for secure accommodation to be used. That is certainly something which we shall be considering.

Mr. Michael: Why does the Minister rely on the Home Secretary's statement which looks to the distant future when we need to speed up justice and to intervene earlier with young offenders in particular now if we are to be tough on crime and the causes of crime? As the Home Secretary has admitted that there is a relationship between unemployment and crime, will he persuade his Cabinet colleagues to restore hope to young people and to recognise the impact of other Government policies on them? Will they recognise especially that the way in which the Government are forcing cuts on the youth service will increase the number of idle hands for which the devil will find employment?

Mr. Jack: The reason I rely on the statement is because it is a darn good statement. It was made by my right hon. and learned Friend and I feel that it is important to rely on it. I wholly rebut the hon. Gentleman's allegation that my right hon. and learned Friend made the connection that his question begged. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads again the Home Office research by Simon Field in which he will not find a proven connection between individual wrongdoing and the level of economic activity. There is no split between us. I also point out that the hon. Gentleman's question did not acknowledge the work being undertaken by the Department for Education to deal with the relationship between crime, truancy and exclusion.

Mr. Hawksley: Has my hon. Friend had time today to read about the case of the 17-year-old who was before the courts yesterday in Birmingham and found guilty of attending the stealing of a car with a young girl who was killed? Does he realise that that youngster was already on bail for the offences of rape and kidnap? What are we going to do to ensure that such people are not allowed out to endanger lives in future?

Mr. Jack: We very much understand the strong feelings on the subject of bail. A great deal of work is being undertaken to reconsider not only our policies in that connection but the effectiveness of the working of the bail system. It is very important that, for example, our bail study information groups come up with recommendations to improve the quality of the bail decision-making process. I very much understand my hon. Friend's point.

Security Services

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the Home Affairs Committee's first report of Session 1992–93 on accountability of the security services.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government will publish their response shortly.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that we hope that he will accept the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee that the security service should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny? If other countries, no less democratic than our own, have decided over a period of time to have such scrutiny, why should this country be an exception? Is it not the case that the sooner the security services are subject to proper scrutiny, the better it will be?

Mr. Clarke: I gave my views to the Home Affairs Select Committee and they have not changed from those in the evidence that I then gave. The important issue of parliamentary accountability will be dealt with again by the House when we debate the Bill relating to the secret intelligence service and GCHQ, which the Government have announced they intend to introduce in due course. We shall then have a proper and serious debate about how the security service can be subject to some accountability without damaging its operational effectiveness.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we already have a commissioner for the security service for which I am responsible and he has just produced a report for this year. There is also a commissioner who regulates our use of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. I commend both commissioners' reports to the hon. Gentleman because they, like me, are satisfied that the security service is acting only for the purposes for which it is intended to act and within the strict legal constraints that legislation places on it.

Crime (London)

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss the level of crime in the capital.

Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to meet the Commissioner.

Sir Michael Neubert: Can my hon. Friend confirm that he is aware of the concern of my constituents and many like them about the relatively small number of criminals who are caught and charged and, of those who are apprehended, the less than satisfactory number who are convicted and adequately sentenced? Can he give my constituents some reassurance that the challenge of crime will continue to be tackled with the vigour and rigour that it demands?

Mr. Wardle: I understand the concern that my hon. Friend expresses; no doubt he will be pleased to hear that Operation Bumblebee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bunglebee]. Operation Bumblebee, which is a very successful operation, has recently been launched in the Romford area. My hon. Friend will also be aware that sector policing is proving successful in the Romford area, and no doubt he will welcome the fact that there is a dedicated


anti-burglary squad there, too, whose clear-up rate is better than the metropolitan average. No doubt he will also welcome the fact that 6,000 uniformed posts have been added to the Metropolitan police since 1979.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister appreciate that he has already devised a new name for Group 4? Leaving that aside, does he agree that the best form of crime prevention in London is that devised by local authorities working in co-operation with the police, which will take place only if we have a proper accountable police force in London under local authority control, such as exists in all other local democracies? Why are the Government the only people now holding out against that proposal?

Mr. Wardle: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the answer is more local authority control he should realise that that would simply lead to a whole lot of political posturing. He ought to await eagerly my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals for a new police authority for London which will genuinely increase accountability and support the work being done by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

Sir John Wheeler: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when the Home Secretary meets the new Commissioner of the Metropolitan police he will ask him to ensure that there is a clearly stated policy within the Metropolitan police area for the control of burglary and auto crime, and that the small minority of offenders who persistently commit large numbers of such offences is targeted?

Mr. Wardle: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will discuss that priority with the Commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) will also appreciate that the new Commissioner has set out plans to release 700 officers from headquarters unit out into local units within Greater London in order to tackle precisely the problems that my right hon. Friend describes.

Police Authority (London)

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the proposed police authority for London; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future political control of the Metropolitan police.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have already received representations about that subject from a large number of hon. Members. As I announced on 23 March, I propose to establish new police authority arrangements for the Metropolitan police. I will develop my proposals in more detail over the next few months and set out more details when I publish my White Paper.

Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the size and complexity of London means that the Metropolitan police have to be controlled differently from the way in which other police forces are controlled? Does he accept that, however unsatisfactory it may be for the Metropolitan police to be controlled by the Home Office, the establishment in London of a police authority along the lines of police authorities elsewhere is not the solution?

Mr. Clarke: I think that London needs a police authority and that the arrangement whereby the Home Secretary is in theory the police authority for London is not adequate if we are to hold the Metropolitan police to account, as happens with other police authorities, and if, as I have said in answer to previous questions, we are to assist them by giving clearer guidelines on priorities and so on. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is no good regarding the Metropolitan police force as if it were just another provincial police force. It is much bigger and has many special duties connected with being in the capital. It certainly should not simply be handed over to local government as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) suggests. Considerable thought about the sort of police authority that London needs is necessary.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us feel that there was far too little consultation on the matter before he announced his proposal? We feel that greater London has special problems—it is the seat of government and has a huge diplomatic community—and special arrangements should be made for it, but we remain to be convinced of the need for the new proposals.

Mr. Clarke: With respect to my hon. Friend, the purpose of making the statement was to have a consultation process and to listen to the views of my hon. Friend and of many other people who have an interest in the Metropolitan police service. In modern times, the Government spend their entire time consulting on proposals, which is a good thing; I have no doubt that in the end it tends to improve the quality of decision taking. We are getting so used to leaks, guesses and misreporting in the newspapers that it is thought quite improper if the Minister ever says anything by way of announcement of intentions without having talks with the world and his wife about it first. I have now put out my proposals for consultation and I will set them out in more detail in the light of what my hon. Friend and others have already said to me when, in the summer, I produce a White Paper that will pave the way for further discussions.

Mr. Tony Banks: Many of us welcome the proposals by the Secretary of State for a new police authority for London, although we would clearly wish to go that much further than he. Nevertheless, it is a welcome step. Can he tell the House his thoughts so far about the basis on which elected councillors will go on to the police authority? Since he did not answer the question when he made his original statement, what thoughts does he have about the future of the City of London police force within the compass of the new London authority?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman and I are agreed that London needs a police authority and that it is time to change the arrangements whereby the Home Secretary is the police authority. Remembering the hon. Gentleman's record on the Greater London council and the many things that he has said about police over the years, I very much doubt that it will turn out that we agree on anything else at all on this subject. I am now considering the membership of the police authority and listening to all views from all sides, and I will announce my proposals in more detail when I produce the White Paper. I have no proposals to make at the moment about the City of London police.

Mr. Maclennan: Recognising that the Home Secretary's authority has not always covered itself in glory in protecting members of the diplomatic community and the royal family in the past, can he assure us that further contracting-out groups such as have been active earlier this week in safeguarding prisoners will not be given responsibility for either the diplomatic community or the royal family?

Mr. Clarke: I am happy to have the opportunity to assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no intention whatever of contracting out or placing in private hands fundamental police duties that require the powers of a constable. Reports to that effect in the newspapers are completely wrong. I do not believe that it is a proper use of a trained police officer to sit in a taxi handcuffed to a harmless prisoner who is being conducted from prison to a court, which is what most court escorting services amount to.
At the moment, under the old arrangements, large numbers of prisoners appear to escape, and the present rate of escape is not out of the ordinary. I hope that we shall make the service more effective by concentrating on its provision by a specialist service. I also trust that we shall release police and prison service manpower for more important duties—tackling ' crime and looking after prisoners.
It is absurd for the Liberals to join the Labour party in its obsession with saying that the most trivial tasks of a policeman or a prison officer must continue to be done by a public sector employee because that is what the public sector trade unions keep demanding.

Unit Fines

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the workings of the unit fine system; and if he will consider proposals for change.

Mr. Jack: We are monitoring the operation of the unit fine scheme carefully. We are taking very seriously concerns expressed about the working of the system in certain cases, and are considering how these concerns can best be met.

Mr. Steen: I wonder whether the Minister has heard the story of the little 83-year-old lady who lives on her own in south Devon and who inadvertently forgot to renew her television licence. She was fined £800 and eight units, because she had a disposable income of more than £5,000 a year. In the same court, a younger woman who committed exactly the same offence and who had a disposable income of under £5,000 a year was fined eight units and only £32. While Conservative Members are entirely for change for the better, we are opposed to change for change's sake. Can the Minister tell the House today that he will make some improvement that is more equitable, which Conservative Members will support entirely?

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate on how we might study and improve the operation of the unifying scheme. He was kind enough to bring to the Home Office some of his local magistrates who made a singular and helpful contribution to our discussions. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), magistrates make the decision

in assessing the value of units; it is a judicial decision. If there is information that they wish to question, they have the right so to do.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Why does not the Minister recognise the depth of feeling among magistrates about the unit system? It is undermining the discretion of local justices and leading to absurd fines. Recently in Gwent, a young unemployed youth was fined more than £1,000 for dropping a crisp packet. Although we may condemn litter louts, that seems a bit out of proportion and brings the whole system into disrepute.

Mr. Jack: On 4 May, we shall meet the Magistrates Association which will give it an opportunity to join in our work. The case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned resulted from somebody not filling in the means inquiry form. In those circumstances, an individual, under present arrangements, can go back to the court and ask for the matter to be reconsidered.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Prime Minister agree first, that the supply of weapons to the states of the former Yugoslavia should be choked off and not increased and secondly, that arms and equipment dealers who may wish to dabble there, and their friends, no matter how well connected, will not find a safe haven in Great Britain?

The Prime Minister: The whole House views with dismay and despair the slaughter in the whole of Bosnia which we see daily on our television screens. For that reason, we have sought over the past few months, not least at the London conference and in a variety of other ways, to play our part in the international community in trying to bring an end to that particular conflict. I share the hon. Gentleman's view about the need to damp down and not to increase the supply of arms.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Staff for calling a strike for tomorrow and on other days which will be damaging to passengers, especially my constituents, and which could put in danger other people's jobs? What would my right hon. Friend do if his transport spokesman backed the strike? Would he back him or sack him?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the latest strike by the RMT will cause further hardship to the travelling public and that it will damage British Rail's finances. That does not safeguard jobs in rail or elsewhere; it actually puts jobs


in rail and elsewhere at risk. It is an utterly pointless strike. It is a throwback to the 1960s and it deserves the support of no one. It certainly does not have my support and it does not have the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I regret that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) supports the strike. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition does not and I hope that he will take appropriate action.

Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that just before Easter, he assured me during Prime Minister's Question Time that the Government were prepared to widen and to intensify sanctions against Serbia. In view of the appalling slaughter at Srebrenica, will the Prime Minister tell us what action the Government have taken since then?

The Prime Minister: I certainly stand by the remark I made to the House before Easter. We are keen both to widen and to deepen the sanctions against Serbia. To do that we need the complete support of our allies in the Security Council and elsewhere. I expect that a suitable resolution will be passed in the United Nations this month, but I cannot guarantee in advance of that the support of all other members, which is necessary to ensure that we have that resolution. The British position is clear. We wish to have that resolution as speedily as possible. We should have welcomed it today.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister recognise that even the existing sanctions are not being enforced adequately so that there is no real let or hindrance put upon the Serbs and their present barbarous behaviour? Instead of the Security Council resolution being delayed until towards the end of the month, ought not the British Government be urging that it be brought forward so that the international community can take effective action?

The Prime Minister: As I indicated delicately to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that is the position of the British Government, but we would not get it through the Security Council at this moment for reasons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can well understand. One of the permanent members would not be likely to support it now, but will be later this month. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows who and why.

Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister understand that there is really deep anger and concern in Britain about the fact that the slaughter at Srebrenica is a daily affair? Ought there not to be more urgency than this leisurely diplomatic pace?

The Prime Minister: Let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that neither he nor anyone else has a monopoly of concern or conscience about the matter. His concern is shared throughout the House and the country. No one doubts that. The question at issue is what we can do, how best we can do it and what options will most successfully help to bring an end to the slaughter. In achieving that, we need the support of the other members of the Security Council and the international community. We have been seeking to obtain it for a variety of measures and we shall continue to do so. In the meantime, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will need no reminding of the leading role that Britain has taken in providing

humanitarian aid and in the search for a diplomatic settlement. We were the first nation to put a substantial number of troops into Bosnia and to help people facing great difficulties through the winter.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the advice of the armchair generals and pseudo-defence experts, all suggestions of substantial military action in the Bosnian region should be totally resisted as in that terrain it would lead to guerrilla warfare and substantial loss of life among British service men and women and those of other countries, and would make no contribution whatsoever towards an early resumption of peace talks and a settlement of the problem?

The Prime Minister: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and agree with him. We are seeking a diplomatic means of ending the fighting. That is the only credible way forward for the international community. Other issues have been considered and discussed, but they involve substantial disadvantages. Many of them were cogently set out to the House yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Ashdown: The key question is whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to see Srebrenica fall into the hands of the Bosnian Serbs.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has shared for a long time the concern that everyone in the House feels about the issue. What he has never done is suggest a way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I will answer the question in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman has never suggested a way in which we could physically prevent military action. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we should put British troops on the ground in Bosnia, will he please say so directly or stop implying it?

Mr. Roger Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the respect of the public and parents for the teaching profession was not enhanced by the conduct of certain people at the National Union of Teachers conference last week, and that the proper way to restore public confidence in the education system and testing is the Government's review and not a campaign of sabotage?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The concern that we have in education policy is to improve the quality of education and the success of all our children as they go through their schooling. I believe that the remark of the president of the NUT that the union's aim was "to annihilate the tests" was a disgrace. I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member in the House will give any houseroom to that sort of attitude.

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Prime Minister aware of the increasing concern among the lower paid and many other people about the proposed increase in domestic fuel prices from April 1994? If so, what advice would he offer to those people who face massive bill increases in the winters of 1994 and 1995? Would he advise them to leave the heat on, turn it down or switch it off?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will provide substantial extra help for people in particular need; we will announce the details of that in good time and the increases will take effect before any increases in the fuel charges. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might give me a straight answer at some stage as to whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) when he called for an increase in value added tax.

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the importance attributed to manufacturing by many, if not all, people, does my right hon. Friend recollect that manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government, whereas, during the 1980s, Britain enjoyed the fastest growth in manufacturing output of any major European country and that manufacturing productivity in Britain during the 1980s rose faster than in any other major industrial country in the world? Do recent figures show that conditions are now in place to resume and build on that progress in the 1990s?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend clearly knows, the figures released yesterday show manufacturing output sharply up. They underline the fact that our manufacturers are taking advantage of the present opportunities. I very much welcome that. We need a strong and successful manufacturing industry. What we need to see is an industrial renaissance, not the propping up of lame ducks. The fact that we now have the lowest interest rates in the Community, very low inflation and a competitive exchange rate gives our industries and our exporters in particular every opportunity of growing, investing, expanding, and seeking and achieving success in the 1990s.

Mr. Hardy: The Prime Minister mentioned tests. Does he accept that t he testing of English proposed for this year is so outrageously flawed that not only the test should be withdrawn but the present direction of the Department for Education should be withdrawn as well?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the principle behind the hon. Gentleman's question. I think that there is no doubt that the tests are the key to raising standards, as our main competitors around the world have shown. It is a straightforward matter of common sense. Without tests, teachers cannot identify pupils' weaknesses and cannot tackle them, parents cannot hold schools to account for their children's progress and the Government would not know what was happening in the schools. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members do not find the importance of education and tests a matter for seriousness.
The National Institute for Economic and Social Research found that, at middle and lower ability, pupils in England learnt less than their contemporaries in France, Germany and Japan. That cannot be satisfactory to us and it cannot be satisfactory to teachers. It is vital that we have those tests so that we can identify those weaknesses, find out what the children have not understood and have not learnt and then take action to put it right. Hiding those tests and the results of them is no way to help our children in schools.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: Against the background of the scandals surrounding the European bank for reconstruction and development, and persistent reports of fraud involving the common agricultural policy and other European funds, is it not a matter for congratulation that the British Government, at any rate, have made a high priority of proper discussion of, and attention to, the reports of the European Court of Auditors? Will my right hon. Friend read up on his efforts in that direction? In particular, when he has a chance to have a word with Chancellor Kohl will he ask him why the Germans are not so keen as we are on discussing this sort of fraud?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that the United Kingdom has taken the lead in action against fraud both in the agreements that we reached at Maastricht and on other occasions when European leaders have met. We have done that in the past and we will continue to do that in future.

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hoyle: Despite the Prime Minister's boasting about the engineering industry, has he not seen the Engineering Employers Federation report published today which suggests that engineering imports will rise twice as fast as exports? How will that balance of payments crisis help the country? Does it not once more show how far engineering manufacturing industry has declined due to the mismanagement of the economy by his Government?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right about that. He needs to concentrate, as we are concentrating, on the opportunity that we have to expand and improve the industrial and manufacturing base as a result of the policies that we put in place, which are now clearly becoming successful. I regret that Opposition Members do not like that success, but it is becoming more evident week after week.

Business of the House

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 APRIL—European Communities (Amendment) Bill: progress in Committee, 21st day.
TUESDAY 20 APRIL—Opposition day (11th allotted day). There will be a debate described as "Bringing stability to the nation's schools" on an Opposition motion.
Proceedings on the Charities Bill [Lords], the Clean Air Bill [Lords], and the Radioactive Substances Bill [Lords], all of which are consolidation measures.
Motion on the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 21 APRIL—European Communities
(Amendment) Bill: progress in Committee, 22nd day.
THURSDAY 22 APRIL—European Communities
(Amendment) Bill: progress in Committee, 23rd day.
FRIDAY 23 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 26 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Does he recall that on several occasions lately we have pressed him for the defence estimates debate—a debate which has not been held for two years? He will recall that just before the recess the issue was raised with him at business questions. That was most unfortunately followed speedily by the Ministry of Defence publishing a written answer in which some redundancies from the Navy were announced. The conjunction of a request for a Navy day debate and the defence estimates debate with such an announcement was most marked and will cause great anger on both sides of the House, so may I remind the Leader of the House of the need for both debates?
May I also remind the Leader of the House that we still have no undertaking from him or his colleagues about the debate on public expenditure. The issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) has just drawn attention—the forecast of the emergence of a twin deficit, with growing deterioration of the trade gap—highlights the implications of public expenditure and makes the need for that debate all the more urgent.
May I further press the Leader of the House for a full foreign affairs debate, in the light not only of the situation in Bosnia, apart from the military implications, but of the deteriorating situation in South Africa? May I remind him also that we seek a debate in Government time on the stocktaking in Scotland.

Mr. Newton: Hon. Members have become familiar recently with that type of long shopping list from the right hon. Lady. She did not add the only one that I have been able to meet this week, which is the demand for an Opposition Supply day. Given that I have again proved my desire to be helpful, by putting that in the programme for next week, I hope the right hon. Lady accepts that I remain anxious to be as helpful as I can on as many as possible of the subjects that she raised. But I cannot hold out the immediate prospect of providing everything she wants.
I note particularly the point the right hon. Lady made about the defence estimates, although I assure her that there was nothing sinister in the coincidence of the different statements to which she referred.
On the subject of public expenditure, I reiterate the point that I have made several times, that, as I announced today, we are about to embark on debating the Finance Bill. I imagine that some of the issues that she has in mind will, subject to the decision of the Chair, be in order in the course of those debates.

Sir John Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon for a further debate on the social chapter so as to expose the sham of the position of the Labour party and those who claim that the social chapter would be good for British business?

Mr. Newton: The House will be aware that the Chairman of Ways and Means has provisionally selected new clause 75 to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which provides for just such a debate as my hon. Friend is seeking on the social chapter, following the passage of the Bill. In view of what my hon. Friend said, it may be sensible for me to announce that the Government think that a debate of that kind would be a sensible proposition. It may be helpful for me to say that, if that debate takes place, as may happen next week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will indicate the Government's willingness to accept that new clause.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Despite the desire of the House occasionally for masochism, if, as seems possible, next week's debate in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill finishes before the end of Thursday, will the Leader of the House consider providing time to debate whether we should support or oppose the European Community proposal for a carbon tax, given that Energy and Environment Ministers will meet on Friday of next week?

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's request. I cannot promise to accede to it should the contingency arise, but I look forward to his help, which I took was implied in his question, in making sure that rapid progress is made on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: In view of the fact that the most serious of all European events at present is taking place in the Balkans and that we have never had a full day's debate in Government time devoted exclusively—I choose my words carefully—to the war in the Balkans, may I ask my right hon. Friend to think again and provide a day next week, or at least firmly promise a day the week after?

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot give that specific promise, though it is fair for me to remind my hon. Friend, whose concern in these matters is well known, that I have on at least one occasion that he will remember well—perhaps that is why he was choosing his words carefully—gone out of my way to provide him with a substantial opportunity to take part in a debate on those matters. Also, I readily arranged yesterday with the Secretary of State for Defence for a full statement on Bosnia, which again gave my hon. Friend an opportunity to give some of the important views that he holds on the subject.

Mr. Ken Purchase: Will the Leader of the House find time for the House to discuss


the powers of the DSS, especially to provide children with grants for school uniforms? I ask that in the light of the position in Wolverhampton, where the right hon. Gentleman's Conservative colleagues running the council have found in necessary, despite spending at the cap, to withdraw grants from children in need. Requests referred to the DSS have been refused because the DSS says that it does not have power to make such grants. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that state of affairs ill becomes the Conservative party's view of Britain being at ease with itself? It smacks more of words than actions.

Mr. Newton: The Secretary of State for Social Security will be answering questions within the span of the statement to which I referred—on Monday 26 April—and I shall draw his attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman may have a point to raise with him.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the appropriate Minister to make a statement to the House about tendering procedures in the national health service? Is he aware that, in Macclesfield, Mediguard Services Ltd. has lost its contract to Pall Mall Services Group Ltd. and that as a result, due apparently to some EC regulation, the employees of Mediguard are being denied their rightful redundancy pay, and some have been taken on by the new contractor at lower rates of pay? Is that the caring face of Conservatism in which we on this side of the House believe?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me to comment off the cuff on the circumstances that he described, but I will bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Peter Shore: If the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is completed before the commencement of business next Thursday, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Report proceedings will not commence without a proper interval after the completion of the Committee stage?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's question interrelates with that asked earlier by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). If the European Communities (Amendment) Bill completes its Committee stage on Wednesday, it is rather unlikely that I would expect it to proceed to Report on Thursday.

Mr. John Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on remedies available to the courts for the treatment of violent young offenders? My right hon. Friend will no doubt have seen national publicity about an elderly pensioner, a constituent of mine, who will be 100 years of age on Sunday and who was savagely beaten up by a young thug earlier this week. Does he agree that remedies presently available to the courts are unsatisfactory and urgently need reviewing? Is he aware that my constituents and many people throughout the country believe that corporal punishment ought to be available to the courts to use in appropriate circumstances, but that they are prevented from imposing it by the European Convention on Human Rights so enthusiastically signed by the Labour party?

Mr. Newton: Unhappily, I was unable to be present at Home Office questions earlier, but I would be surprised if

similar issues were not raised then. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is well aware of national concern, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) will know that my right hon. and learned Friend is working on new proposals for dealing with juvenile offenders, and I am sure that he will take note of my hon. Friend's points. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will want to express their horror at that appalling crime against a very elderly lady.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I note that a Northern Ireland order is to be considered next week. Can a statement be made on the delay in forthcoming Northern Ireland legislation? I have been a member of the House for 11 years and have been waiting for something in the nature of a children order all that time. A roads order is coming, and we have been pressing since 1983 for a residential parking order, which we are told cannot be introduced.

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a statement, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is due to answer questions in the House today week.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised if I ask why no time has been made available next week for the Report stage and Third Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill. Surely the House is overindulging itself with the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. The Committee stage of the lottery Bill was completed six weeks ago today, and my right hon. Friend may be aware that the Government are advertising the appointment of an adviser to the Department of National Heritage. Surely it is time to put the rest of the bricks in place.

Mr. Newton: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern, which he has assiduously expressed on several occasions during recent business questions. I do not accept that the business that I have announced could be described as over-indulgent, for I am sure that the House wants to make progress with the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I seriously note my hon. Friend's concern, and perhaps I may more light-heartedly take his as a further suggestion for business that could be considered on Thursday, were time to become available.

Mr. John Garrett: This autumn the Chancellor will introduce a so-called integrated Budget. That decision has never been debated in the House and the proposal is less progressive than it looks. Surely the House should have an opportunity to discuss such an important change in our financial control arrangements.

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be wrong in saying that that has not been debated in the House, but it would certainly have been before my time as Leader of the House. As I told his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), I would have thought that it might be possible for the hon. Gentleman, subject to your discretion, Madam Speaker, to make observations on that matter during the debate on the Finance Bill.

Mr. David Nicholson: It will be clear to my right hon. Friend from questions today and yesterday that an increasing number of hon. Members are dissatisfied at the stance of the western powers on Bosnia. May I again


press my right hon. Friend for an early debate on the apparent ineffectiveness of sanctions and diplomacy in dealing with evil murderers and systematic rapists?

Mr. Newton: I well understand the concern in all parts of the House about what is happening. That is why I arranged for a statement yesterday and no doubt why many of today's exchanges with the Prime Minister also focused on the issue. I do not in any way dismiss the concern of my hon. Friend and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who raised the matter earlier. However, I cannot add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South about further debate.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the growing concern throughout England and Wales about the potential threat to public health from the growing number of disconnections by the privatised water companies, would the Leader of the House find time for a debate on debt and disconnection in the water industry before Scotland suffers the same disastrous consequences of privatisation that we are experiencing in this country?

Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to provide time for such a debate, nor do I see how it could be in order on the Finance Bill—on which I have fallen back once or twice in the course of questions. I shall make sure that the hon. Lady's point is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends to whom it should be directed.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Can my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to discuss the defence estimates and the Royal Navy? He may be surprised to know that three quarters of my constituents are affected by moves away or redundancy which will cost the Exchequer an additional £800 million that will not be repaid this century by any sort of savings. The House needs to look at the defence estimates, which seem to be going up, despite the number of people who are being made redundant.

Mr. Newton: I note that my hon. Friend has come in behind, as it were, the right hon. Member for Derby South (Mrs. Beckett) on a matter that is undoubtedly important. I shall certainly seek to find time for it when I can make an opportunity available. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the extremely vigorous and energetic way in which he has represented the interests of his constituents in these matters for a long time.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On the subject of the Finance Bill, and given the importance of the oil tax changes that were proposed in the Budget, with up to 10,000 jobs at stake according to the Government but up to 30,000 at stake according to the industry, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he accepts that it would be appropriate to debate the Finance Bill in a Committee of the whole House? That would enable the maximum number of hon. Members, many of whom perhaps did not appreciate the importance of the measures in the Budget debate, to vote against these damaging Treasury proposals.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the arrangements for determining which parts of the Finance Bill are used to be taken in a Committee of the whole House are normally discussed through the usual

channels. I am sure that those important elements of the usual channels who are present will have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Will the Leader of the House bring the appropriate Minister here so that we can have a debate on the proposed robbery of the British Coal superannuation scheme, as that proposal is so important to the people who will be affected by it?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to accept for one moment his description, but I draw his attention to the fact that the President of the Board of Trade will be here next Wednesday to answer questions.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on the circulation of racist and anti-semitic literature through the post? In particular, has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to a document, which is a peculiarly offensive and filthy forgery, that is circulating by the thousand in London? It purports to come from a synagogue and contains invented quotations from the Talmud, attacking the Christian religion. As it is equal in its cunning to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and as intelligent people are believing its content and attacking the Jewish communities for having produced it when it is a fascist forgery, may we at least have a statement from the Home Secretary denouncing it as the forgery that it most certainly is?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to warn me that he would seek to raise the matter. I need hardly say that that is always helpful, if only because it enables me to be more constructive in my answers than I might otherwise be.
This seems to me to be an offensive anti-semitic document, which the House will deplore. The law on incitement to racial hatred is contained, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will well know, in part III of the Public Order Act 1986. Prosecutions under it can be made in England and Wales only by, or with the consent of, the Attorney-General. However, responsibility for the investigation of complaints about material likely to incite racial hatred rests with the police as part of their general duties in the enforcement of criminal law. In view of the responsibilities of the Crown prosecution service in advising on prosecutions, I should make it clear that I would be happy to arrange to send a copy of the material to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I hope that that answer is helpful to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the tragic incident that occurred at the last meeting of the Cambridgeshire hunt 10 days or two weeks ago. Many of my constituents were present when young Thomas Woreby was killed at the hunt. Given that, while ever there are hunts, there will be violence because young people will try to prevent wild animals from being torn to pieces in the name of sport, will the Leader of the House initiate an early debate on fox hunting?

Mr. Newton: There have been a number of violent incidents in or near my constituency as well, so I understand why the hon. Lady has raised that matter. I cannot promise an early debate, but we should be concerned to do anything that we can to prevent outbreaks of violence wherever and however they may occur.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Leader of the House agree to an early debate on the destruction of the coalfield communities that will be brought about by the implementation of the Government's recent 'White Paper? Will the House join me in congratulating Women Against Pit Closures, which, 100 days ago yesterday, set up pit camps to defend the pits from closure and to defend the coalfield communities from destruction?

Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that, while, once again, I appreciate why he has felt it right to raise that point, as it is only a short time—just before the recess—since the House had an extensive debate on the coal proposals, I have no immediate plans to stage another.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: During the proceedings on the Finance Bill on Monday week, is there likely to be a statement on the issue of the council tax and timeshare dwellings, remembering that the statutory instrument has to be addressed within 40 sitting days of 11 March? Does the Leader of the House accept that there is considerable concern among timeshare owners who feel that their property is not used for commercial purposes?

Mr. Newton: Given that the council tax would be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the. Environment rather than one to be dealt with in the proceedings on the Finance Bill, I am not sure of the connection that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I am aware of the concern and of the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made a number of points relevant to that concern. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's raising of it this afternoon to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: The Leader of the House will remember that, in October, the Secretary of State for Employment announced a package of £75 million for retraining measures for redundant miners. On 31 March, she announced measures for the release of that money and it is clear that, because of those criteria, not one penny of that money will come to north Nottinghamshire. Miners feel that they are being short-changed by the Government over their jobs, their pensions and now retraining. May we have an urgent statement on that next week?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise time for an urgent statement, but I shall certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. David Hanson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on effective parliamentary scrutiny of the Prime Minister? Many hon. Members on this side of the House feel that Prime Minister's Question Time is too short, is full of planted questions and that the Prime Minister does not answer other questions effectively. Whatever else it is, Prime Minister's Question Time is not an effective way of checking the Executive. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate so that we may examine possible ways of improving that accountability?

Mr. Newton: From where I sit, it looks like a pretty effective means of scrutiny, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, on the occasions when I have deputised for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it feels like an

effective form of scrutiny. What is more, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I think that my right hon. Friend is very good at responding.

Mr. Barry Jones: What chance is there of an early debate on the situation in the aerospace industry? Recently, 260 of my constituents on the production line of the executive jet of British Aerospace at Broughton lost their jobs and 700 of my constituents in the same factory on the airbus production line have also lost their jobs. Surely there should be time for a debate so that we may know what the Government are doing to assist the industry and my constituents who are soon to lose their jobs.

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate, but I would make two points to the hon. Gentleman who, as ever, is representing the interests of his constituents. First, any difficulties are in common with aerospace industries around the world because of underlying recessionary difficulties which go well beyond these shores. Secondly, the British Government, not least my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have manifestly put a huge effort into obtaining orders for the British aerospace industry to help with the problems that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Leader of the House is not prepared to have a debate on Bosnia next week, may we have a debate on early-day motion 1766 which deals with arms dealing in relation to Bosnia?
[That this House questions the propriety of Baroness Thatcher calling for a lifting of the arms embargo on Bosnia when her family has substantial interests in the arms trade; and calls upon her to declare interests before future statements are made.]
Is the Leader of the House aware that some of us were incredulous when Baroness Thatcher talked about the innocent little Muslim children, given the way in which she treated those Muslim children in Iraq? When she talks about selling arms, we hear the footsteps of her son the arms salesman and the jingle of Arab money.

Mr. Newton: In view of the seriousness of the concern that is felt on both sides of the House about what is happening in Bosnia, and the difficulty of the issues involved, that question falls well below the level of events.

Mr. David Winnick: If the Leader of the House accepts the seriousness of the situation in Bosnia and the concern about it, why is it not possible, even at this late stage, for the Government to reconsider next week's business and, instead of devoting three days to Maastricht, devoting at least one day to a wide-ranging debate on what can be done about the Bosnian situation to try to stop the continuing war crimes there—the atrocities, the systematic rapes—against people whose only crime, it seems, is that they are Muslims?

Mr. Newton: I make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, it would have been open to his right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to choose that subject for the Supply day debate on Tuesday. Secondly, I shall take this as yet another request for what, increasingly, hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to hope will he an otherwise vacant day on Thursday, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's help in ensuring that such progress is made on the Maastricht Bill.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week on the publication of accounts by political parties? It will be entirely appropriate for the Leader of the House to make a statement in support of that today as there is a notice of motion on the Order Paper for an unopposed return under the Representation of the People Act 1983, which, as the Leader of the House knows, is legislation designed to prevent corruption through excessive expenditure during a general election. Why should not we have similar legislation to prevent corruption, once the Government are in place, by payments to a political party which produced, for example, before the last general election £17 million for the Conservative party?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Not enough.

Mr. Cryer: The right hon. Gentleman says that it was not enough. That £17 million has secured a number of promises from the Government, and we want to know what those promises are and from where the money comes.

Mr. Newton: In view of the occasional remarks of some trade union leaders about what they expect from the Labour party in response to. the financial contributions that they make, I find that a rather odd question. I will respond, in my usual low-key way, by saying that I have no plans for a debate next week.

Mr. Tony Banks: Following the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), may I remind the Leader of the House that I have a ten-minute Bill application on the abolition of fox hunting on 27 April? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, perhaps I can put him down as one of the sponsors. In the meantime, may we have a debate in Government time on animal welfare? The Leader of the House will be aware that most hon. Members receive more correspondence on animal welfare issues than on any other subject. It would give us an opportunity to raise the subject of the slaughter of pilot whales by the Faroese and the failure of stores such as Marks and Spencer to take positive action to prohibit the sale of Faroese meat.

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman would be as surprised as the rest of the House if I were to respond by urging him on with his Bill or immediately promisiing him the time that he seeks. I want to correct a wrong impression that he might have gained from my, I hope, reasonably understanding reply to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). The incident in my

constituency that I referred to was gross violence committed by hunt saboteurs against people who were doing something entirely lawful. That too is something that we will be seeking to prevent.

BILL PRESENTED

COASTAL WATERS (QUALITY STANDARDS)

Mr. Patrick Nicholls, supported by Sir John Hannam, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Rupert Allason, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Gary Streeter and Mrs. Angela Browning, presented a Bill to make provision for the introduction of a new system for meeting the costs of improvement of water quality standards in coastal waters; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 April, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that yesterday we had a similar situation to that which we now face: a Bill was defeated—by 65 votes to 39—on what was, in House of Commons terms, a very thin day because we had just returned from the holidays. Roughly the same Bill was introduced yesterday, and we challenged it. You said on a former occasion that you would not scrutinise Bills which were presented in an attempt to circumvent a decision of the House.
"Erskine May" says on pages 468 to 469 that Bills should not be accepted if they were substantially the same. I think that the Bill presented today is substantially the same as the Bill which was defeated yesterday. I think that that flouts the rules of Parliament, and I would like to know your ruling and whether it has been scrutinised.

Madam Speaker: My ruling is precisely the same as the one I gave previously. I ruled earlier in this Session in respect of what was known then as the human fertilisation Bill, which was presented to the House by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). This course is in order, and since yesterday's refusal to introduce was not the kind of decision which rules out the presentation of a similar but not identical Bill. In so ruling I have taken account of the precedent set in "Erskine May".
I, too, have looked at "Erskine May". Let me correct the hon. Gentleman by referring him to pages 468 to 470. On the earlier occasion I indicated that the existence of this loophole was something which might be looked at by the Select Committee on Procedure—that the House might wish to refer the matter to the Committee, and that remains my view. It is for the House to take action if it feels there is a loophole that needs filling.

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 30 March]

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I have an announcement to make before the Committee discusses amendment No. 57. It is a reasonably long statement.
I am prepared, at the appropriate time, to select for separate Division amendments Nos. 225 and 268, both in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), amendment No. 426, tabled by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democratic party, and, finally, amendment No. 420 in the name of the right hon. and learned Member the Leader of the Opposition.
I have received from all parts of the Committee requests for separate Divisions, on e considerable number of amendments that have been included in the groups that have been debated. As the Committee knows, in deciding whether or not to allow separate Divisions, the Chair is exercising its power over the selection of amendments which is conferred on it by Standing Order No. 31. As stated in "Erskine May", page 405, it is not the practice for the Chair to give reasons for such decisions. I do not propose to do so in individual cases.
However, I think that it would be helpful if I mentioned one very basic requirement which I am sure that, on reflection, members of the Committee will appreciate: that to be selectable for a separate Division the purport of an amendment needs to have been substantially covered during the course of the debate on the group in which it has been included. I am afraid that this simple criterion cannot be said to apply to a great many of the requests that I have received, and that therefore many of the relevant amendments do not get to first base in terms of selection for a separate Division. This is an obvious point, but I thought it might be useful if I were to put it on the record. Nevertheless, hon. Members will find that I have selected for separate Division a number of amendments and new clauses coming from different parts of the Committee.
As the Committee knows, on 30 March I made a separate announcement about my decision on a separate Division on amendment No. 27, to which some rather special circumstances apply. Since then I have received a number of representations on this matter. I have listened to the arguments, as I promised to do, and I have, to the best of my ability, taken into consideration the particular circumstances of the case. However, I am not minded to alter my previous decision not to select amendment No. 27 for separate Division.

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have listened with great care to your statement, and I want to begin by thanking you for your patience in listening to my representations yesterday with respect to amendment No. 27. Although I have always, throughout the many years that I have been a Member of Parliament, respected the authority of the Chair, I must

ask you to think again about your decision on amendment No. 27. That amendment meets the criteria you have just described in outlining the reasons behind your decision. It was the subject of the longest debate we have had throughout the Committee proceedings. The amendment is in order. It was selected for debate. It stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
At no time during that debate, or subsequently in the weeks intervening until 30 March, was there any suggestion that my announcement to the House during my speech on amendment No. 27—that the Opposition would ask the Committee to divide upon it—was to be contradicted. It was therefore something of a bombshell to hear your ruling on 30 March.
I think that that ruling, which you, Mr. Morris, are now saying must be sustained, is a very odd and dangerous procedural precedent. I certainly cannot recall, in 23 years in Parliament, any precedent of this kind in all of the Committee proceedings in which I have played a part either as a Minister or as a member of the Opposition Front Bench. There may be precedents but I am not aware of them, and no one can show me any.
The reality is, we are told, that the Government are now to accept new clause 75. They are running away from a Division in the House of Commons on new clause 75, so your original argument in the submission of 30 March that you would accept a Division on new clause 75 but not on amendment No. 27—an argument, incidentally, that I never accepted because we did not regard them as alternatives—no longer stands because there is not now to be a Division in Committee on new clause 75. The Government have caved in on that aspect, as we understand that they are to do on amendment No. 420 and perhaps on others as yet unannounced.
I believe that the case for a Division on amendment No. 27 remains as overwhelming as it always has been, and that view is widely shared in the Committee. My view and our arguments, the nature of the amendment and its importance, were not affected by the very dubious ruling, which is itself contested, given by the Attorney-General and expressed to the House by the Foreign Secretary as a way of getting the Government off the hook on this crucial issue.
For all those reasons, I ask you to reconsider the unprecedented announcement that you have made to the Committee today.

Several hon. Members: rose——

The Chairman: Order. I owe it to the right hon. Gentleman to respond to him immediately.
I have thought very deeply about this particular case. I thought about it originally because, while it is not for me to take into consideration political dimensions—and it is not—I have to be sure that the procedures I follow are ones that have logic on their side. I went very deeply into this matter all the way through and, indeed, it does not need me to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the number of references to it that I made.
I started with a reference in column 685 when the original point was raised following the right hon. Gentleman's intervention in column 402. I made a further announcement three days later in column 1026, and yet a further one some seven days later in column 483. I made yet another announcement in column 1271 before I made the substantive statement in column 161 on 30 March.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that, in reaching a decision, I have to follow the traditions of the Chair that I now hold and recognise that they are there as guidance given to the Chair over time and that the Chair has to carry out the duties imposed on it. It is not a particularly easy decision on occasions. I know what the easy decision would be on amendment No. 27, and if I were to take it I would be the hero of part of the Committee. Nevertheless—[Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other hon. Members want to go outside, that is entirely up to them.
The easy decision would have been to have accepted, revised and looked again. Nevertheless, the Committee and the House have asked me to assess the merits of all the amendments and whether or not there should be a vote. I have spent many hours in preparation and many hours coming to a decision and I must tell the Committee that it will have to accept that, in the end, I have to make a judgment.

Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. Again, I listened carefully to what you told the House, and I noticed that you did not challenge my contention that your decision sets a precedent for the Chair in such circumstances. I repeat that I believe it to be a dangerous and extraordinary precedent. Having listened carefully to what you said, I can see in your statement no legitimate reason or argument for preventing the House from voting on amendment No. 27. You have certainly advanced no argument; there are no procedural arguments, and no arguments of precedent or order, to prevent the House from having a legitimate vote on the amendment.
I ask you again to reconsider your judgment. Many people far beyond the confines of the Chamber will feel that the House of Commons has been cheated of a legitimate reason to have a vote. I do not use that word lightly, but because I am singularly unconvinced—I believe that the majority of the Committee is unconvinced—about the reasons for your decision. With all due respect to the Chair, I say that, if we are not allowed to vote on amendment No. 27 during the Committee stage, we shall demand of Madam Speaker the right to reintroduce the issue and debate and vote on it during the Report stage.

Several hon. Members: rose——

The Chairman: Order. I shall respond briefly to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
I think that the Committee needs reminding that it is settled practice of the Committee and of the House that the Chair does not give reasons for decisions. The Chair has listened to the representations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I have listened attentively to him and to his colleagues at an hour suitable to them on a number of occasions. I say to the right hon. Gentleman again that I have made the decision on the best advice and on my own judgment, and I have to stick by that.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): On a different point of order, Mr. Morris. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that, of

the four amendments that you announced that you would call for a vote, the Government do not intend to resist amendment No. 420.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. Although we greatly appreciate the enormous number of hours that you have devoted to the debate, may I ask you to consider two additional points that you may not have been able to consider before? The first is that the protocol which is the subject of amendment No. 27 calls on my constituents to pay money to the European Community for the social chapter applying to the other 11 members. Clearly that is a decision which Members of Parliament should make. It is the kind of thing that Parliament discussed in the time of King Charles: should we pay money or should we not?
May I ask you, Mr. Morris, if there is not some way in which the House of Commons can be allowed to decide, yes or no, whether our constituents should be forced to pay money for the social chapter of the other 11 member states? If we do not have the opportunity to decide, the money will simply be paid over whether we want to pay it or not.
The second issue is that of precedent. I have looked thoroughly through "Erskine May" and all the other basic information available, and I can find only two examples in the history of the Commons of such a decision being taken. One dates from 23 March 1964 and the other from 11 June 1968; both involved Back-Bench amendments, not official Opposition amendments, and in neither case was the decision delayed until weeks after the debate had taken place.
In view of the fact that you have served the Committee so superbly, Mr. Morris, and given so much of your time, and as you have listened to all the arguments and weighed all that has been said, will you tell us what on earth is the argument against letting the House of Commons decide whether we want to pay money to Brussels? Surely, as that is a taxation issue, we should be able to decide yes or no.

The Chairman: The hon. Member was kind enough to write to me on 5 April asking me to take into consideration those very points——

Sir Teddy Taylor: Not both of them.

The Chairman: With respect, the point about 11 June and the one point on 12 June are in his letter; perhaps he has forgotten exactly what he wrote about. At any rate, on 5 April he wrote to me a two-page letter and I can assure him that I have been over it with a fine-toothed comb. It was one of the factors that had to be taken into consideration in coming to my decision.

Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. From the beginning of this Committee there has been a clear wish on the part of a large number of hon. Members to be able to express a view on whether the United Kingdom should adhere to the social chapter. Are our procedures such that there is no way of taking such a vote, even if—as you, I think, argue—following the Attorney-General's ruling, a vote on amendment 27 would be virtually symbolic? Nevertheless, it would be a vehicle by which the Committee could express a view, and there is no doubt that it wishes to do so.

The Chairman: I am not sure that I can answer the hon. Gentleman's point of order, because part of it was not a point for me as Chairman. He was thinking aloud, if I may put it that way.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am most concerned about what is happening here at the moment. I do not believe that the Committee does itself any credit—and there is certainly not a precedent—when it challenges the ruling of the Chair on the amendments selected. There are ways in our procedure for that to happen, but it is not the custom for the Chair to be put under pressure by arguments about the decisions that the Chair has made in order to carry forward the debate in the Committee. It would set a very bad precedent in our procedure if, every time there was a decision that some hon. Member did not like, we got into a debate about whether we ought to have a vote on it. We have received your ruling, Mr. Morris. I believe that it should be followed and that we should get on with the debate. Enough time has been wasted.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), Mr. Morris. I think that all hon. Members would agree that, whatever the merits of any decision, the difficulty which you and the Committee face is the fact that, surprisingly enough, this Bill is not to ratify the treaty. The brevity of the Bill, coupled with the complexity, length and, indeed, importance of the two or three treaties to which it refers are the basis of our problem. So I wish to raise three points of order relating, in the reverse order, to your announcement.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to the Report stage. Can you tell us whether, to your knowledge, the ruling that you have just made prevents amendment 27 from being again tabled, debated and decided on Report, because I am quite sure that nobody wishes to cheat Parliament of an opportunity to vote on an amendment that has been selected, moved, debated, but not put?
The second point relates to the statement that you made about the selection of amendments for subsequent vote. I think you said that you were not able to select many of them because, although they had been selected for debate, during the course of the relevant debate the matters contained in those amendments were not covered. Am I right in saying that there seems to be some disequilibrium between the opportunity for debate, your opportunity for selection and the rules relating to the closure? Can we refer that to the Select Committee on Procedure?
The third matter relates to your list of amendments Nos. 225, 268, 426 and 420 for Division. May I confirm that those are to be taken immediately after the conclusion of the debate on amendment No. 57—perhaps today? If that is so, can you give us any idea of the new clauses and other amendments, to which you referred, which will be voted on before we reach the new clauses on the referendum, which I fancy will be next week some time? Unless we know that, hon. Members will not know what matters they are expected to vote on when we return on Monday.

The Chairman: There are some important points to answer there. I cannot make any decision that affects the Report stage. That is a matter for Madam Speaker and for

her alone. On the question about Select Committee on Procedure, the Chairman of that Committee is present and he will have noted the hon. Gentleman's point.
On the question of separate Divisions—this is an important point—immediately following the conclusion of the debate on amendment No. 57, to be moved by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), there will be a separate Division, if so moved, on amendment No. 225, followed by a Division on amendment No. 268, if so moved, and followed by a Division on amendment No. 426, if so moved. At that point, we shall reach the clause stand part debate. After a Division on that, we shall have a Division on amendment No. 420, although I understand that there was an earlier statement on that amendment. That is the position on the hon. Gentleman's three points.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Following the explanation that you were good enough to give the Committee about why some amendments were not eligible for selection, does it not follow that, if some hon. Members had made shorter speeches, more amendments would have been eligible for selection?

The Chairman: Well over 100 hon. Members have contributed to substantive debates on amendments.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. My point is simple. Does not the Government's announcement during business questions that they did not propose to oppose new clause 75 have a bearing on your ruling? You could have found out about that only at the same time as other hon. Members. That must be a relevant factor in the ruling that you have been working out over the past few days. Given that that is a very recent change in circumstances, does it not mean that you should be allowed time for further consideration?
The key factor was that there were two amendments on the same point which were both available for Division. Now that we know that the new clause will not be opposed by the Government, surely that has a bearing on the decision that you have had to reach on amendment No. 27. Should you not ask, Mr. Morris, for some further time for reflection? Given the recent announcement, that would be well understood by all members of the Committee.

The Chairman: The announcement was as new to me as it was to the hon. Gentleman. I heard it on the monitor in my room at the same time as it was heard by hon. Members who were in the Chamber. I immediately sat down with my senior advisers and reflected on whether it did have any further impact on the lengthy discussion I had had earlier. I came to the conclusion that it did not.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Would you be good enough to expand a little on what you said about giving no reasons? That seems to have caused some misunderstanding among some members of the Committee. It is said that you appeared on "The Parliament Programme", which seems to many members of the Committee a very unusual thing for a Chairman to do. It is further said that you gave reasons for your decision not to allow a debate on amendment No. 27 on "The Parliament Programme". It may be——

The Chairman: Order. I gave no reasons at all.

Mr. Burgen: rose——

The Chairman: That seems to be the substance of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. If he will withdraw that point——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Budgen: I withdraw it.

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman has the transcript and says that I said that, he should produce it. If not, I shall be grateful if he will take my word and withdraw.

Mr. Budgen: I withdraw it. However, I understand—and I do not have the transcript—that you gave an explanation of your ruling in which you said that the Bill had received a substantial majority on Second Reading.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman ought either to come better prepared with his point of order or to accept the ruling I have given. I have said to the Committee that in this day and age, if the responsible media approach the Chairman for a general discussion on an issue of major importance to the nation, I have some obligation to the media.

Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have no wish to enter into a discussion of your reasons for the ruling on amendment No. 27, although I very much support the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) when he addressed that issue. However, it is clear that your ruling is not supported by the official Opposition. So far as one can judge, it is not supported by any of the Opposition parties, and it is almost certainly not supported by a large number of Conservative Members. It may well be the case that your ruling is contrary to the wishes of the majority of the Committee.
My question to you is this: if that were the case, what remedy is available to the Committee? One obvious remedy would be to move and to attempt to carry a motion of no confidence in the Chair. I assume that no one would wish to see that draconian step taken, but if that majority exists, is there some procedure which would allow that majority opinion to be expressed in such a way as to ensure a vote on amendment No. 27, which the majority of the Committee may wish to take place?

The Chairman: It is the lot of the Chair to make impartial rulings. Impartial rulings sometimes support the majority of the Committee and sometimes the minority, but they have to be made on the best judgment of the Chair, and I have done my best and come to that conclusion.

Mr. William Cash: In 1976–77, the Speaker of the House of Commons was asked to consider the question of hybridity. I understand from readings of Mr. Speaker Thomas that, as you pointed out, Mr. Morris, guidance is taken from the advisers and the Clerks of the House on decisions of this importance, and that initially the decision was taken that the Bill concerned would not be regarded as hybrid. However, it turned out that strong advice was given, contrary to what the Government draftsmen had been suggesting, that in this instance the Bill should be

referred to examiners. Therefore, there is a precedent for a change in advice. Furthermore, it is perfectly clear that in relation——

The Chairman: Order. Maybe I shall let the hon. Gentleman continue, but I must not let him proceed on that point, because matters of hybridity are for the Speaker and not for me as Chairman of Ways and Means. If the hon. Gentleman has representations to make, they should be to Madam Speaker and not to me. I hope that there is some other element he wishes to raise.

Mr. Cash: Yes, indeed. It was not the question of hybridity, but the question that you raised, Mr. Morris, on the extent to which, as a matter of practice, you would rely on guidance from the Clerks of the House. It therefore follows that it is possible, even in matters of grave constitutional importance, for that guidance to be reviewed.
Just now in your statement, you put enormous emphasis on the length of the debate. I concur strongly with the remarks by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) about the money question. There is no doubt whatever that there was a lengthy debate. Indeed, it was followed by a further debate, in respect to which the Attorney-General made his submissions, which was followed by yet another debate. In those circumstances, I ask you, Mr. Morris, to review your decision.
There can be no doubt, both as a matter of practice and of length of time, that amendment No. 27 has been thoroughly debated and should be put to a vote. There is no precedent for such a situation to have occurred in the history of the House. In the light of those circumstances, I ask you to review your decision and take further guidance from the Clerks of the House.

The Chairman: I shall make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is true that I get guidance, but I do not shirk making a decision. The decision rests on my shoulders alone and I have made it to the best of my ability—and so be it. Secondly—this is an important point and I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has not yet understood it, although we are entering the 20th day of Committee—it is not the length of time that is important. What is important is the content of the debate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You said earlier that the decision which you had to make in this regard was hard. You could have taken the easy option. You could have taken the democratic option. You could have taken the option which said that a majority of the Committee wanted to vote for the social chapter, as provided for in amendment No. 27. Therefore, I believe that people outside the Committee—whatever the Government may think—will think that this is a crazy place when we can debate at length amendment No. 27 relating to the social chapter and they can see on BBC Ceefax at half-past one today what your decision will be in advance of what you have said now. [Interruption.] Yes, it was announced on BBC Ceefax at half past one today that the Chairman of Ways and Means will rule that there will be no vote on amendment No. 27.
They call it democracy. They call this place the mother of parliaments. We have the whole united Labour party in


favour of amendment No. 27. We have the Liberal Democrats, for what it is worth. We have the other minority parties. There are about 26 rebels who want to vote for amendment No. 27, yet in this tin-pot little arena we have a Chairman of Ways and Means telling us that we cannot have a vote. My view is that this is a stitch-up—and has been from the beginning. This is a conspiracy with the Government of the day. Amendment No. 27 was the only real chance that we had of defeating Maastricht and the Chair has not given us the chance to carry out a proper democratic vote.

The Chairman: I simply make one point: what appeared on Ceefax was absolutely nothing to do with me.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The difficulty for the Committee is that, through the mechanism of this Bill, we will be enacting a treaty which is attracting great constitutional interest. It is moving us from democratic accountable government to undemocratic accountable government, as has been explained. Therefore, we are looking at a constitution behind the mechanism of a Bill.
Effectively, you accepted the closure on some of the amendments on which some of us tried to speak and on which some of us were not called. What is the meaning of this place, as the fulcrum of democracy, if you deny us the right to vote on the motions and amendments on which we seek to vote? Clearly, that is encapsulated in your decision on amendment No. 27. It is highly unsatisfactory. What is the purpose of the House of Commons if it cannot determine the constitution of the United Kingdom?

The Chairman: The Committee has had 19 days on this Bill and is now entering the 20th day.

Mr. Shepherd: On a point of order——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already raised a point of order and perhaps I can rule on that. If he goes through the list of amendments that the Committee has debated, he will find that there is a representative from the group that he has been assisting. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) signed a great number of amendments, and I think he will find that the vast majority of them were debated.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. After a major amendment was properly selected by you, moved and fully debated in the House of Commons, we now face the extraordinary situation that we are denied an opportunity to vote on it. That could surely be justified only if the House were offered an alternative amendment of the same significance on which to vote. That is patently not so, as has been revealed by the Government's announcement that they are prepared to accept new clause 75, whereas they know very well that they cannot and will not accept amendment No. 27. That is to me the heart of the Bill and the debate, as I am sure that it is to many other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
Mr. Morris, you heard the Government's announcement just a few minutes before you came into the Chamber. I have no doubt that you are a quick thinker, but I believe that the amendment raises such important matters that we are justified in asking you to reflect further on your decision.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian, so I take seriously the point that he has raised. I did reflect. There were 15 minutes or thereabouts between my seeing the announcement on the monitor and my coming into the Chamber. In that time I had to decide whether to change the decision that I had come to during the lunch break. I decided on balance that, despite the announcement, the basis on which I had reached my conclusions was unchanged. Therefore, I have to stick by that decision. I am sorry, but I am not persuaded that, even in the newly changed circumstances, a vote would be appropriate.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As Chairman of Ways and Means, you are not the King's man or even the Queen's person. You have a particular responsibility for money Bills and budgetary matters. You are the custodian of the democratic rights of the House. Your responsibility with regard to the disbursement of public moneys is clear: it is to the House and those to whom we, as elected representatives, are responsible. They look to us to ensure that our democratically expressed authority is given before their moneys are disbursed.
In this case, moneys are being disbursed for the implementation by the other members of the Community of the social chapter, to which we in the United Kingdom are not a party. To those outside it will look the most extraordinary anomaly, which is surely worthy of explanation, that, after long debate, we should not be allowed to vote on amendment No. 27. We have had a debate. Why, after that long debate, should we not be allowed to vote? Can you please, Sir, in this exceptional case, explain to us how on earth we can go back to our constituents who sent us here and say, "We debated long and hard on your behalf, but we were denied a vote by the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is responsible to the House and the country for the disbursement of public money and the democratic authority that goes with it"?

The Chairman: The hon. Member's colleague wrote me a long letter on that particular point. I weighed up the points and came to the conclusion that I reached. I am afraid that the hon. Member will have to accept that.

Mr. James Molyneaux: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. We on this Bench would be the first to testify to the tolerance and diligence that you have shown in attempting to assess the views of the Committee as a whole, and not of any particular faction thereof. You would have been assisted in that regard if the Committee had not carried closure motions, thereby terminating many debates which would have given you a wider picture.
However, the same cannot be said of the amendment which is the subject of our discussion now. The debate was conducted in a constructive spirit by everyone who spoke, in the full expectation that they would be permitted the opportunity to vote on amendment No. 27 in the light of all that had been said during the debate. To some extent, through no fault of your own, you were bounced into a position today by an unexpected announcement made in an offhand way—I mean no disrespect to the Leader of the House: the announcement was simply drawn out in answer to a question. You had little time to reflect on the changed position.
In the light of what has happened and the way in which you have been caught off guard, and as you said just now


that the matter was of supreme importance to the nation, I join the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) in asking you, with great respect, to think again.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. Member. The whole procedure for amendment No. 27 has been a moving target. As the Committee will be aware, I made it clear on several occasions before I made the announcement that the whole issue was a changing scene. I can do no better than read to the Committee column 483 of the Official Report of 4 March. I said:
We are still some way off having to consider anything to do with amendment No. 27. As the hon. Gentleman will know, attempts are being made by hon. Members on both sides of the House to produce more amendments relating to this broad area. It would be wrong of me to make a judgment at this point on whether other amendments—or how many of them—may exist by that time."—[Official Report, 4 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 483.]
I have had to make judgments continually as we have gone along. I have based them on extensive documentation which I have kept on each and every amendment, not least amendment No. 27. That is the basis on which I came to my conclusion.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Few people in the House will understand better than me the burdens which you carry, because I seek in some modest way to share those responsibilities as a member of your Chairman's Panel. However, do you accept that many hon. Members will be deeply saddened and very shocked by the announcement which you have made to the House this afternoon? I am sure that you accept that leaders of political parties, Privy Councillors, Her Majesty's Opposition and numerous Conservative Members believe that amendment No. 27 is critical. You said in your opening statement and have subsequently repeated several times that the amendment was widely debated at great length and in depth. Many hon. Members who were not called to speak would have sought to do so if the Chair had not yet again accepted the closure.
Mr. Morris, you have a critical constitutional job in the House of Commons, to be guided not only by those who advise you but by the precedents of the House. But you surely also have a duty to the genuine Back Benchers of the House to ensure that the House can divide on critical issues. I am sure that I do not need to remind you or the Committee that amendment No. 27 is one of the most critical in the debates that have taken place during the Committee stage so far.
In addition, as my hon. Friends on both sides of the Committee have said, the amendment relates to money. Exceptional circumstances surround the statement that you have made. You stated that you were aware only 15 minutes before you assumed the Chair of the Committee that the Government were prepared to accept new clause 75, which deprives the House of Commons, and therefore the people of Britain, of the opportunity to decide one of the most fundamental issues contained in the Bill which we are debating in the Committee on their behalf.
As a member of your Chairmen's Panel, in view of the exceptional circumstances, because it was unfair that you

had to reach a decision in just 15 minutes, and as many of Her Majesty's Privy Councillors have intervened to request that you review your decision——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member will recognise that tedious repetition is not something that any Committee is advised to follow and, as a good Chairman, doubtless he would rule it out of order, as I am now ruling that part of his remarks out of order. I recognise that, whatever decision I took today, one part of the Committee would be well pleased and one part would be upset—[Interruption.]—but that is the lot of the Chairman. It is the lot that I have to accept and I willingly accept it. In the end, I must make a decision.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have no wish to complicate matters still further or make your already difficult job still more difficult. But I invite you to look again at amendment No. 453, which stands in my name. You might feel, on having looked at that amendment again and on further reflection, that it affords you an opportunity to achieve a compromise between the various views that have been expressed so far. With your indulgence, I will explain why.
Amendment No. 27 deletes the whole of the protocol, and that deletion led the Attorney-General to say that the Government could ignore any vote on amendment No. 27 since it was, in effect, a double negative. Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of the Attorney-General's opinion, many members of the Committee are unhappy about new clause 75, which stands in my name and that of others, because they feel that it is too remote from the debate that has already taken place on amendment No. 27, and I appreciate that point of view.
That is why I invite you, Mr. Morris, to look again at amendment No. 453, since it achieves the deletion of that part of the social protocol that allows the United Kingdom Government an opt-out. So although it is a deletion and remains in order, consistent with the acceptance of amendment No. 27, it would, if accepted, force the British Government to accept the protocol on social policy.
It has been accepted as being in order, it would give you the opportunity of a compromise, it does not fall foul of the Attorney-General's opinion—whatever the merits or otherwise of that—and it would perhaps allow the Committee the opportunity of the kind of vote which was anticipated on amendment No. 27 but which will not, if your ruling persists, now take place. That is why I urge you, with respect, to look again at amendment No. 453.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and he is right, in that I had to consider amendment No. 453 very closely. I reached my decision having done so.

Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In view of the obvious disturbance and unease in the Committee, and the unusual course of events—to put it no more strongly than that—I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I hope that you will grant that motion.

The Chairman: The Question is that I do report Progress. As many as are of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Dr. Cunningham: Further to my point of order, Mr. Morris. I submit that the Committee should have an


opportunity to debate the motion that I moved. I understand that it is debatable and I urge you to allow it to be debated.

The Chairman: The right hon. Member asks whether a motion to report Progress is debatable. It is. After he had moved it, I quickly looked round the Chamber and did not immediately see hon. Members rising to speak to it—[Interruption.]—but I may have been mistaken. I now make it clear that a modest debate on the motion should take place.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Do I understand that the Division is off? If so, could it be made clear that it is off at this stage and that a debate on the motion to report Progress will now take place?

The Chairman: The Division is off.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. While it is, of course, for you to decide whether the motion should be debated, it being debatable, do you agree that if you considered that we should proceed without a debate, it is within the power of the Chair so to proceed? In other——

The Chairman: Order. It was not my wish to prevent a debate. I did not see any hon. Members rise to debate the matter, but, clearly, as there was a misunderstanding, I am allowing a debate.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Is it a new one?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes. Am I right in saying that it was within the power of the Chair to allow a debate to take place and to call the Division off even if no hon. Member was standing a t the time the vote was called?

The Chairman: Whether or not that be the case, it is clear that there was confusion, and hon. Members were not entirely clear what was going on. I hope that it is now clear that we are debating the motion to report progress. I call the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to open the debate.

Dr. Cunningham: I am sure that at least that decision and ruling will have majority support in the Committee this afternoon, Mr. Morris, even if others which you have given have not. It is important that we have an opportunity to discuss the events of the past hour. It is clear that the Government announced their decision on new clause 75 with little time for you, let alone the rest of the Committee, to reflect on the significance of that in respect of your provisional ruling of 30 March.
The Opposition have never accepted that amendment No. 27 and new clause 75 were alternate—that one vote and one decision on one of those issues replaced or obviated the necessity for a Division in the Committee on the other. We have always challenged that position, and we continue to hold that view.
Other than the adjournment of these proceedings to enable discussions behind the Chair to take place, the motion now before the Committee is the best way to proceed. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, not excluding the Government, should have a chance to assess the impact of your new decision, Mr. Morris. The reality
 
is, as many hon. Members have made clear, that there is majority support in the Committee for a Division on amendment No. 27.
I recognise that amendment No. 27 has not been formally moved, but it was among a group of amendments that were discussed, it is in order, it stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and I maintain, as I said on a point of order, that the decision to disallow a vote on amendment No. 27 has no precedent. You have not challenged that argument, Mr. Morris, and I repeat it now.
Even as events have been unfolding in the Chamber, Ministers have been briefing the press to the effect that the Government are willing to accept new clause 75 because they will ignore the outcome of a vote on that issue. It is extraordinary that even while this discussion and disagreement is taking place——

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): The hon. Gentleman has made a serious charge. Perhaps he will name those Ministers.

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I will in due course, Mr. Morris—but not for the moment, thank you very much. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is one of them.

5 pm

Mr. Garel-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very serious charge. Perhaps he will name those Ministers. If not, perhaps he will withdraw his remark.

Dr. Cunningham: No, I have no intention of withdrawing my remarks—none at all. The right hon. Gentleman knows what has been the Government's briefing, which has been going on at exactly the time as we have been discussing these issues in the Chamber. I stand by what I said. I have no intention of withdrawing my remarks.
It is obvious that your ruling today, Mr. Morris, which will deny the Committee an opportunity to vote on amendment No. 27, will allow a discredited Government to escape the consequences of a potential defeat in the House of Commons and to ignore the will of the Chamber on Divisions on other issues before the Committee—and I do not withdraw my remarks but stand by them absolutely.
That will frustrate the will of Parliament by avoiding a vote on amendment No. 27 and the outcome of a potential defeat on new clause 75. As I said several times this afternoon, those circumstances are without precedent. I made the point and repeat it now, that it is our intention to press for the substance of amendment No. 27 to be brought before the House on Report. It would be outrageous if, following a review of your decision, Mr. Morris, or subsequently, Parliament were denied an opportunity to express a view.
On this occasion—this is not always true—I share absolutely the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am delighted to be able to say that.

Mr. Skinner: I think that I had better write that down.

Dr. Cunningham: But I do not want to ruin my hon. Friend's reputation.
People throughout the country will be astonished that, after all the arguments on the importance of the social


chapter issue for the public, the House of Commons will not have an opportunity to record its view. Because the public will feel that they and their representatives have been cheated in being prevented from expressing their view, the whole standing of our proceedings in this place will be brought into disrepute. The public will really come to believe the argument that is all too often expressed these days: that the House of Commons has simply become a rubber stamp for any decision that the Government want to railroad through the Chamber.
That is an onerous charge to make, and I do not make it lightly. The Chair should reflect carefully on the consequences of public disillusionment about a ruling of such significance after so many hours of debate and discussion, on a subject of such importance.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman with great interest: Why is it that members of the Labour Front Bench have left is so late to make a public fuss about amendment No. 27? They knew before Easter which way the decision was likely to go—the Chairman of Ways and Means had already made his announcement. He might have had time to reflect and reached a different decision, had there not been some rather quiet getting behind the pillars by members of Labour's Front Bench, who came forward with an alternative amendment to provide some kind of excuse for not taking amendment No. 27. Why has Labour come out in this way at the last moment?

Dr. Cunningham: I regard the hon. Gentleman's intervention as pure garbage and I am sorry that I gave way to him. For the record, you, Mr. Morris, made your provisional ruling on 30 March—a few days before the House rose for the Easter recess. You properly and generously offered to listen to my representations about your ruling. On reflection, I decided that I should establish precedent and examine parliamentary records during the Easter recess and then see you, Mr. Morris. I wrote seeking a meeting with you before the House resumed earlier this week.
You had an opportunity to listen to my representations only a little while ago and made your definitive ruling only today. So that puts all the nonsense in the hon. Gentleman's intervention into perspective. There is no question of our making an argument late in the day about the significance of amendment No. 27.
I spoke in the debate on amendment No. 27 on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Cabinet and myself. I said then, and have repeated many times since, that we expected the Committee to divide on that amendment. I repeated those arguments on 30 March and again today. To suggest that we suddenly decided, at the last moment, to make a fuss about amendment No. 27 is complete and absolute garbage.

Mr. Tony Marlow: If, as it appears, the Committee will be able to make few decisions on issues of substance in this major constitutional issue and if the public take the view that legislation has been railroaded through the House of Commons without proper scrutiny and the House being allowed to do what it should, is there not a case for the other place examining

the issues in more detail and taking a more radical view than it might otherwise do—as the only bulwark of democracy in this country?

Dr. Cunningham: I have never regarded the other place as a bulwark of democracy, so it is difficult to accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens rightly regard this Chamber as the bulwark of democracy—and it is in this Chamber that the critical decisions must be taken. In these circumstances, it is the duty of the Chair and of advisers to the Chair to find an opportunity for the House of Commons to record a view on amendment No. 27. If that cannot be done in Committee, it should certainly be done on Report. I will not resile from that view and those arguments.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Chair's decision is of enormous constitutional importance. We will commence consideration of the Finance Bill in Committee on Monday week. If the Chair so chose, it need not accept votes on major issues of public policy and expenditure raised by members of the Labour Front Bench in Committee. The principle that has just been announced is of fundamental importance.

Dr. Cunningham: I wholly agree with that intervention. I repeat that the Chair is setting a dangerous precedent, when amendments regarded as in order, selected for debate and debated at length are not selected for a Division, against the majority views of the Committee.

Mr. Cash: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 30 March 1993, the Chairman of Ways and Means stated:
Right hon. and hon. Members will see that I have selected for debate new clause 75 on transferred powers (commencement). As a corollary, I do not propose to select amendment No. 27 for debate or for separate Division."—[Official Report, 30 March 1993; Vol. 222, c. 161.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as there was a so-called swap by way of corollary, it is at the heart of the question of the distinction—made by the right hon. Gentleman—between the content of amendment No. 27 and the content of new clause 75, which deals with the agreement of a future motion? Amendment No. 27 deals with the immediate question whether or not the social protocol should be excluded. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

Dr. Cunningham: We have always made it clear, and I am happy to do so again in response to the hon. Gentleman, that we have never accepted that amendment No. 27 and new clause 75 presented an either/or situation. We did not accept the argument that one could be exchanged for the other. The amendments have different impacts on the legislation. We had different reasons for tabling them and they provide quite separate opportunities for the Committee to express a view on different aspects of the legislation. That is why we could not accept your provisional ruling, Mr. Morris, of 30 March that, by agreeing to have a vote on new clause 75, we were accepting that there would be no Division on amendment No. 27.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is expressing the attitude of the Opposition. However, the Chair has decided that new clause 75 should be an alternative because of the use of the word "corollary". If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a misunderstanding of his intention, would he consider


withdrawing new clause 75? If that happened, it could no longer be said that the acceptance of that new clause stops consideration of and, one hopes, a vote on amendment No. 27. If the right hon. Gentleman is serious in his opposition to this matter, as I assume he is, perhaps he will seriously consider asking his colleagues to withdraw new clause 75. If that were done, the Chair would be placed in the position of accepting a vote on amendment No. 27.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Think about it.

Dr. Cunningham: In response to that sedentary intervention and to the legitimate intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), I have thought about it, but I dismissed it. It was in order to consider all these matters that I did not seek to discuss the position with you, Mr. Morris, immediately after your ruling on 30 March.
These are important matters, and we wanted time to reflect on their consequences and check the precedents. As I have said several times, I concluded that we were always right to argue that the two amendments were not alternatives, but that the Committee was perfectly entitled to vote on both of them. They are quite different in nature and intent and I saw no reason to accept the argument that we could have one or the other but not both. There is no precedent for that argument and no procedural argument in favour of that proposition. I did not feel obliged to accept it and I do not accept it now.
It has been to the benefit of the Committee, and I hope to your benefit, Mr. Morris, to allow this motion to be debated, not least because it gives another chance for reflection—what in old-fashioned jargon used to be called a cooling-off period—in which we can assess the issues. It would be remiss of me not to repeat that your ruling is seriously challenged by the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Cabinet and the Opposition. It is not legitimate or fair to the Committee or to our constituents to deny a vote on amendment No. 27. I emphasise again that in discussions with you, Mr. Morris, and subsequently with Madam Speaker on Report, we shall continue to explore the possibility of a legitimate opportunity for the Committee to express a view on this issue.

Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) undertook to name the Ministers whom he alleged had been briefing the press outside. He has noticeably failed to do so. Would it be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to speak again to fulfil that pledge and demonstrate the seriousness of what he was trying to say?

The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made three points and I shall seek to deal with them. He advanced the proposition, which may or may not be the case, that the majority of members of the Committee wished to have a Division on amendment No. 27. In response to that, Mr. Morris, you said that it is not always the Chair's duty to respond to the majority. Whether there is or is not a majority, it is extraordinary for the Opposition to propose that a majority should decide whether there should be a vote. [Interruption.] If I may say so, minorities who often seek the protection of the Chair

would find the use of a Government majority to thwart their opportunity to express their opinion extremely inconvenient.
5.15 pm
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were seeking to escape a vote on the social chapter. The opposite is the case, because by accepting new clause 75 we are allowing the Committee an opportunity fully to debate the social chapter. Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman made a series of allegations about Ministers. He has not substantiated those, nor will he be able to do so.

Dr. Cunningham: Downing street is giving a briefing on the view of Ministers. If the right hon. Gentleman is not one of the Ministers who holds the view that I have expressed, he should come clean and tell us on which Ministers' behalf Downing street is giving that briefing.

Mr. Garel-Jones: It may come as a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman when I tell him that I am perfectly well aware of the briefing that is emanating from Downing street and elsewhere. It is not what the right hon. Gentleman has alleged.

Mr. Salmond: I am strongly in favour of the motion to report progress. My first reason for that support is for your benefit, Mr. Morris, in your difficult job of chairing the Committee. That was mentioned in a point of order, and it is by far the most important reason. I fully accept that you found out about the Government's attitude to new clause 75 some 15 minutes before you came to the Chamber to rule on the matter. That was clearly the most important event this afternoon. Almost casually, in the middle of business questions, the Leader of the House observed that the Government had a mind to accept new clause 75.
Before that, it was sustainable, although incorrect, for people to talk up the importance of new clause 75 and describe it as a time bomb ticking away under the Government. As soon as the Leader of the House made his observation, it was clear that the Government regarded new clause 75, irrespective of briefings being given by Downing street, as much less a time bomb and more a damp squib. That must fundamentally change your observations about the relative merits of amendment No. 27 and new clause 75.
I make it clear that in my point of order I did not in any way doubt the fact that you, Mr. Morris, had no prior knowledge of the Government's announcement. On the contrary, I was reinforcing the point, because you were in the same position as other hon. Members and had no knowledge of the Government's apparent change of tack on new clause 75. It is inconceivable that you did not have the time that should have been allowed to make a decision of this magnitude. That is the fundamental reason for reporting progress. We must have time for proper consideration of the relative merits under the new circumstances of amendment No. 27 and new clause 75.
The hon. Member for Copeland spoke about a cooling-off period. Many people would benefit from reconsideration. People outside observing events in the Chamber today and in the past few months may wonder whether this is the place for matters such as Maastricht and the social chapter to be ultimately decided. I do not think that there has been anything so edifying about our


proceedings this afternoon that it would suggest to the wider public that this Chamber is capable of making—or will even be allowed to make—decisions on issues of such fundamental constitutional importance as the concept of the social chapter.
I hope that, in the time for reflection that the motion to report progress will allow, those on the Labour Benches will look at the question of a referendum on that vital issue, a decision on which will be coming up next week, and at the amendments tabled today to the clauses in a referendum. They would allow for a vote in that referendum on the social chapter and allow the public to make a decision on the matters that will so manifestly not be allowed to be decided, or be capable of being decided, in this place.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful that the Opposition have tabled the motion in this way, without making any criticism of you, Mr. Morris. As you have kindly referred to the letter that I sent you earlier this month, I should like to read out the last paragraph, which says:
Could I also take the further opportunity of saying in all sincerity as someone who has been around the Euro debates for a long time, that many of us consider you have handled these rather difficult and touchy debates with great courtesy, efficiency and consistency in such a way that no one has a feeling of unfairness.
I meant that sincerely, simply because, although I say nasty things about people, I appreciate that you have performed your role, Mr. Morris, with the courtesy and fairness that is appropriate to the Chairman of Ways and Means.
I support the motion for three reasons. First, things have changed dramatically in the recent past. The statement by the Leader of the House, which came only a few minutes before your statement, Mr. Morris, and no doubt after it was written and then typed, has changed the situation dramatically. They might even be aware of that in Harrow, if they were prepared to listen. The Leader of the House said that the Government, who we understand have been phoning up people in America to ask them whether they would be voting against new clause 75, will now support it. That is a wholly new situation.
You have fairly said, Mr. Morris, that the intention of the Labour party in amendment No. 27 was the same as the intention of the Labour party in new clause 75. The difference is that we shall not have a vote on anything relating to the social chapter before the Queen has to sign Royal Assent. Therefore, the situation has changed dramatically. If we do not have a vote on amendment No. 27, there will be no opportunity for Members of Parliament to express their view on anything relating to the social chapter before the Bill becomes law. That justifies a period of reflection by you, Mr. Morris, on the judgments that you have arrived at, I am sure fairly and reasonably.
The second argument that I should like hon. Members to consider is whether there might be a case for a vote on amendment No. 27 in view of the astonishing statement made by the Foreign Secretary—the second statement on the Government's attitude to amendment No. 27. Hon. Members will appreciate that we had had a statement from the Minister of State which was made with the full

authority of legal advice of the Foreign Office, but that the second statement said that that was all wrong and had to be reconsidered.
The astonishing thing was not that the Minister of State was wrong—we have become accustomed to that in these debates—but what happened after that statement. The Foreign Secretary then said that, even if we voted out the protocol from British law, he would still sign the treaty with the protocol in it and, to that extent, Britain would be obliged, under the terms of the treaty of Rome, to pay its share—one twelfth—of the costs of the agreement of the 11 on the social chapter. That is unusual, because the principle involved is whether it is a Community obligation.
Under the treaty of Rome, if an item of spending is a Community obligation, then Britain is obliged to pay, but if it is not a treaty obligation, there is no obligation to pay. In view of the strange and astonishing statement made by the Foreign Secretary, even if we vote against the proposal, it will still happen, and our constituents' money will be paid over. The issue has to be considered carefully by someone else. The only someone else is a court of law, which should have the opportunity to say whether it is right that, even if we remove that section from British law, we shall still have to pay the money.
I have a third argument, which I hope that the Committee will consider. It is a privilege to have hon. Members present to listen to the debate on Maastricht, because the great tragedy has been the low attendance in the debates. I am sure it is not because hon. Members are lazy—I know that they are all hard-working, decent, honourable Members, and that includes my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). However, they do not want to listen to the arguments on Maastricht because, while they know what great damage it will do, they are not sure what they can do about it.
Those hon. Members should appreciate that amendment No. 27 is not about the social chapter, as I am sure that they have been led by the Foreign Office and others to believe. It is about whether their constituents, including those from Harrow, will have to pay over cash to the EEC for the social chapter of the 11 other member states. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East thinks that it is a good idea to pay over money to Brussels, irrespective of the reason, but whether we want to or not, the point is that we should decide. The crucial issue is the old one of no taxation without representation.
Why on earth should my constituents or those of any other hon. Member be obliged to pay over money to Brussels for someone else's social chapter without their Members of Parliament having the right to decide yes or no? That is the issue over amendment No. 27. Some people would think that we should pay over the money and others that we should not. Therefore, I hope that it will be possible, over the weekend, before we return to the debate on Monday, for you and your officers, Mr. Morris, to think carefully about whether it is right and proper to ask taxpayers to pay money without giving the House of Commons the opportunity to say yes or no.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend remember the perceptive remarks, made after the statement by the Secretary of State, of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)? He said that, where there is a political will, there is a legal way.


Are we not facing a situation in which the Government are determined to get this through come hell or high water, whether or not it is democratic?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend has more experience of the workings of the House, as a Chairman of Committees, than I do. I am sure that there is a great deal in what he says but, if we start talking about those issues, we shall get away from the basic, simple issue that we are meant to be discussing. My hon. Friend has spoken with great sincerity on something that is important and right. However, let us concentrate on the simple and basic issue of whether it is right for people who have fought hard to come to the House of Commons and become Members of Parliament, who have done their best to serve their constituents, to sit back and allow taxation to be paid over without having the opportunity to express their view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) hit the nail on the head, as he so often does. He said that, if we allow this huge precedent to go through, other taxation issues, on which Members of Parliament will not be allowed to express their view, will be allowed to go through.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the important point that he is making about taxation and our duties to our constituents goes to the heart of the treaty? Under the proposals of stage 2, not even to mention stage 3, the whole question of the basis on which our constituents will have their monetary affairs decided, public expenditure, the exchange rate mechanism, and other policies, are intimately bound up with the question of money. It is the prerogative of the House of Commons to decide those issues. That will be affected not only by the provisions that I have referred to, but by the provision to which my hon. Friend referred, in relation to the social chapter.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to make that important and huge point about the destruction of democracy, which those who follow these debates know is happening. However, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), there is no point in debating such great issues when what we are deciding on this motion is a simple issue.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: As a parliamentarian of great experience, does my hon. Friend agree that the spending of money will not be addressed by their Lordships when they consider the matter in the other place? Therefore, if we are deprived of an opportunity to vote on this money matter, there will be no vote on it in Parliament. That is thoroughly undesirable and that is why we in this House have been given the power to consider monetary matters and the other place has not. With that power goes the right to vote on the issue.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As usual, my hon. and learned Friend is right. That was to be my fifth point, although I may not have expressed it so fairly and clearly. If we do not vote on the amendment on the control of cash, the other place will not be able to.
The fourth point that I was about to make concerned the question of precedent. I hope that it will be possible to reflect during the weekend. I have been searching for precedents but I can find only two. One was on 23 March

1964 and the other was on 11 June 1968. Both related to Back-Bench amendments and neither was in relation to an official Opposition amendment or announced, as in this case, weeks after the debate took place.
Finally, I appeal to the Liberal Democrats. The sad thing is that, as those who have fears about proportional representation know, at present the Liberal Democrats basically decide everything. I think that they know that this particular motion will not be decided by those who share my views, by the Opposition or by the Scottish Nationalists who attend these debates so regularly and who contribute in such a fair and objective way; it will be decided by the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats have a simple decision to make. Is it right and proper that we should reflect over the weekend about whether it is a good or bad thing to vote on amendment No. 27? That is all we ask. We are not seeking to overturn the Government. We are in no way seeking to cast any reflection on the Chairman of Ways and Means, for whom I have a greater regard than any previous Chairman because of what he has done throughout this long Committee. If anyone doubts that, they should have been here to see how he has gone out of his way to protect minorities.
We are not trying to overturn the Government or the treaty. [Interruption.] I am. Make no mistake about it. I shall do everything in my power to stop the treaty being ratified because it is an affront to destroy people's democracy and to take rights from them without giving the people an opportunity to have their say. However, that is the third great argument, and I cannot get into that. The crucial thing is to appreciate that we are considering something simple and basic. The only issue is whether the Chairman, with the help of his advisers and in the light of a new situation which arose only 15 minutes before he rose to speak, should have the opportunity to reflect on whether we should vote on amendment No. 27. That is all we are asking for.
The Liberal Democrats have a great tradition of fighting for people's rights. History shows how the Liberal Democrats represented free trade and how, despite all the difficulties facing them, they have gone out of their way to do what they think right in fighting for people's rights and for democracy. I hope that on this one occasion they will say that it is not a question of being for or against Maastricht, or for or against the Government, but a question of what is right and proper for a democratic House of Commons.
It would be an affront to our constituents if we were to in any way permit taxation to be applied without a vote of the Members of the House of Commons. In view of the Government's astonishing decision to support new clause 75 instead of opposing it, it would be an affront not to reflect on that further. Therefore, I hope that, in the unique power and opportunity that they now have, the Liberal Democrats will vote to think over the matter during the weekend. Such a decision would not bring down the economy or the nation; it just means thinking about something for a few days.

Sir Russell Johnston: rose——

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman is going to vote to beat the rail strike.

Sir Russell Johnston: It is all a bit messy. I have never really participated in any debate quite like this before. We are debating a motion to report progress. Usually such a motion is about getting on with the business, but this is about not getting on with the business. The effect of agreeing to the motion will, presumably, be a short further delay in the Committee stage—and to beat the rail strike, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly pointed out, but that is incidental.
As the House knows, the Liberal Democrats believe in getting the Bill through as expeditiously as possible. Usually, therefore, we would oppose a motion of this sort if we felt that it was being introduced to prevent that. We do not agree with those who have sought, by all means possible, to delay the Bill, and we also regret that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, being declared supporters of Maastricht, have at no stage sought a reasonable, even a behind-the-Chair, agreement with the Government about rational progress in the timetable of the Bill. That would have been the right thing to do.
The motion has been moved because of amendment No. 27, the idea being, as expressed by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), to allow time for reconsideration. That is odd in a way, too, because we are not supposed to debate your ruling, Mr. Morris, at all. Yet, in a way, we are, or at least we are running close to it. That is also odd.
According to the Attorney-General, amendment No. 27 would have no legal effect whatever and, therefore, it would not matter if it were agreed to. The right hon. Member for Copeland said that that was open to question. The higher metaphysics of the law will always produce something that is open to question. I am quite prepared to accept that what the Attorney-General says is true. I do not know. I have no means of arguing in any sensible way against it. However, it would nevertheless be a symbolic vote. There is no doubt about that—I think. But I am not even sure about that in a way. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but consider this——

Mr. Skinner: What does the right hon. Gentleman tell the electorate?

Sir Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman be quiet for a minute?
The Euro-sceptics on the Government Benches would vote for amendment No. 27 because they do not believe in it. Practically all of them being to the right of the Conservative party, they are against the social chapter. Therefore, many Conservatives, and perhaps—with all respect to the right hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—a critical number of Conservative Members would vote for the social chapter because they were against Maastricht and for no other reason.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the Conservative party, a number of Members who are in favour of the social chapter would, in these circumstances, vote against it. So hon. Members may laugh and say, "Ha ha, he cannot make up his mind," but I am just trying to point out to the Committee that none of this is simple and easy. To claim that in some way or other this vote produces a clear result and shows what hon. Members think is not true. Therefore, it is difficult.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Russell Johnston: Yes, but, alas, I am not right hon. yet.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I see that the hon. Gentleman is blushing. It is quite clear what the attitude of the Committee is to the mistake I made, so I wish the hon. Gentleman good fortune.
Is the hon. Gentleman, as the spokesman for the Liberal party, prepared to accept the expenditure of money by other countries without the House having the right to vote on that expenditure? If so, how does he equate that decision with the traditional view of the Liberal party about spending and the need for parliamentary approval?

Sir Russell Johnston: I do not deny that the issue is important, but it is not what we are talking about in this argument. We are talking about a large number of hon. Members who wish to express a view about whether Britain should accept the social chapter. I was simply pointing out that the trouble is that, because of the nature of the break-up of support in the Committee—unless we have a free vote—it will be very difficult to secure a result that genuinely reflects views. That is a big problem.
As for the basic issue and the business statement about new clause 75, I have not had a proper opportunity to think it over. It was described by some as the "Semtex amendment" that would explode everything; it was said to be a very pertinent amendment. It was the replacement of amendment No. 27—there is no doubt about that; that is how it was conceived—and now, suddenly, we can accept it; it does not matter; it is all right; no problem. I find that very difficult to rationalise.
For once in my life I am prepared to agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—even at great risk to my privy councillorship—that a pause for consideration is sensible in the circumstances.
You, Mr. Morris, have chaired the Committee in a magnificent and fair way. Nothing that I say in any way reflects on you.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I trust that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn arid Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will soon become a right hon. Member and that—having announced his aspirations in a delightful way—he has not sabotaged them with his final sentences.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) rose to intervene, I heard some of my hon. Friends say, from a sedentary position, "Be kind to him, Ivan." They were willing him to vote on their side. He has clearly satisfied their demands and they will therefore support any recommendation that may be made in that regard. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman ended with a tribute to you, Mr. Morris, because I believe that anyone who is fair-minded and has watched the proceedings of the Committee can only come to the conclusion that you have performed an exceptionally difficult job extremely well.
There can have been few occasions during the post-war history of Parliament when minorities have had a better opportunity to voice their legitimate opinions. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East acknowledges that.
What troubles me is that in another guise—until the hon. Gentleman defused the situation with his speech—we came close to embarking upon a criticism of a ruling of the Chair. That is a very dangerous precedent to establish. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) talked about dangerous precedents; if there is a dangerous


precedent at issue this afternoon, it is that. The cornerstone of the House and the whole constitution of this country is the impartiality of the Chair. I believe, Mr. Morris, that you have upheld that extremely well since you acceded to the post of Chairman of Ways and Means. I hope that you will long continue to hold that office.
One expert in procedure, who contributed a particularly perceptive point of order this afternoon, is the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). We do not always agree on political issues, but I yield to none in my admiration for him as an expert on procedure in the House. He made the important point—which has been taken up by others—that there will be a Report stage. On Report, certain things will obviously be debated; it is up to Madam Speaker precisely what they will be.
5.45 pm
When the House first meets in any new Parliament, the first thing that it does is to elect a Speaker—someone elected by the House in whom the House, by that election, reposes, its trust and confidence. It seems to me, Mr. Morris, that there should be no challenging of your ruling, which you have made with expert advice. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I speak as a member of the panel of Chairmen. It is not easy to come to decisions on amendments, and there may well be an amendment about which there are passionate views, but which is just out of order; or it may not be possible to select it or call it for voting. You have made your decision honourably and rightly, Mr. Morris, but there will be another opportunity to debate it. It would be far better if we proceeded with our discussions today.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about me, although it is not necessarily true. But he has just gone a shade further than he really needs to. I think that he is right to say that "we hope" that there will be that opportunity, but I hope he will agree that there is no guarantee that there will be.

Mr. Cormack: I am sorry if I was not entirely clear. I said that we know that there will be a Report stage. What I was seeking to say is that, because we know that there will be that Report stage, it would be far more sensible not to attack, directly or indirectly, the ruling of the Chair and to accept that he has—whatever we may think of his ruling—agonised over it. It would now be appropriate for those who feel strongly about the issue to make representations not to the Chairman, but to Madam Speaker. She will have ample time between now and the Report stage to reflect on all the issues and, having taken advice and, in her wisdom, to decide whether she feels this issue should be put to the vote. I accept that my hon. Friends feel very strongly about the issue, but the Committee is not being denied a final opportunity this afternoon.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The worry for many of us on both sides of the Committee is that the ruling that has been made sets an important constitutional precedent and therefore can be cited again. I asked earlier about the Finance Bill. Here we have a precedent relating to the expenditure of money, in which the Chairman may decide—as a matter of power taken unto himself, on the authority of the House—that questions which are of importance to our perception on behalf of our constituents or this country may not be put to a vote. That is what we are challenging, and surely we are right to challenge it.

Mr. Cormack: I do not believe that my hon. Friend is correct in his deductions and conclusions. I do not believe that any Chairman of the Finance Bill Committee—I have done the job myself on a couple of occasions—would act in the way that my hon. Friend suggests or supposes.[Interruption.]
We are all entitled to our opinions. I do not believe that the Chairman of Ways and Means, in taking his decision today, has in any way created a dangerous constitutional precedent. What I am saying—and I appeal to all members of the Committee—is that we damage our Chair at our peril and to the danger of our Parliament.

Mr. Salmond: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the real damage to the Chair came from the announcement during business questions which put the Chair in the almost impossible position of having only 15 minutes to consider this vital matter? Does he accept that the real damage to the Chair came from his own Front Bench?

Mr. Cormack: The point that I make once again—and it is the most important point of all—is that this is not the final opportunity. There is to be a Report stage. It is entirely up to those hon. Members who feel strongly on the issue to make their detailed representations to Madam Speaker, who will have not 15 minutes but probably far more than 15 days to come to a decision. I believe that it would be in the interests of the Committee and of those who still look to the House of Commons for some sort of democratic guidance to get on with the business that we are supposed to be discussing.

Mr. Spearing: You have decided, Mr. Morris, that we should debate the motion to report progress. I view that as a procedural safety valve. It allows pause for reflection, at least for a short while. We shall then decide whether to have a longer period for reflection. I support that, for a number of reasons which are self-evident.
May I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) about another opportunity for further representations, an opportunity which may or may not arise? On this issue, I disagree straight away, perhaps unusually, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who said that the whole thing was a stitch-up. I happen to believe that, as far as we can provide for it, the procedures of the House are there to prevent stitch-ups. Occasionally there are attempts to have stitch-ups, but in my experience when someone in some way tries to stitch up something, we usually run into procedural trouble.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Like today.

Mr. Spearing: Yes, indeed. I said that someone may try to stitch up something. When, therefore, we get into procedural trouble, the yellow lights flash, not just for those who may have precipitated the situation but for Parliament itself.
People complain that Parliament is not dealing properly with the Bill. That, I suggest, may be because of the nature of the Bill and the nature of the material—just as the body tries to reject something that is indigestible and that may come up in the other direction.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is renowned in the House of Commons for his understanding of its procedures. Can he quote to me any precedent when


a leading Opposition motion, in the names of official Opposition spokesmen, pressing for an amendment has been refused on any major piece of legislation going through the House of Commons?

Mr. Spearing: I do not want to go too far down that road. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I know of no precedent in that respect. I bear in mind the terrible difficulties faced by any occupant of the Chair, whoever it may be. Therefore, I can divine certain reasons why the decision has been made, but it does not mean that, if I were the occupant of that Chair, I would come to the same conclusion. I intend to devote the rest of my remarks to saying why it should be possible for a decision on amendment No. 27 to be taken. I hope, Mr. Morris, that you will take that remark in the spirit in which it is proffered.
To revert to the question of yellow flashing lights, this is not the first problem that we have encountered. There has been a succession of constitutional and procedural hiccups along the way. To take the treaty that we are discussing, it was published four weeks after the general election, which was supposed to give the House of Commons a mandate to pass it. That, surely, was a major constitutional hiccup that we should not forget.
Furthermore, this is a treaty to amend another treaty, which would produce a third treaty. That is not before us, either as a treaty or in the Bill. The Minister of State is not here. When we asked him on several occasions whether he would print that treaty—for it will be a treaty of union, if it goes through—he said no. The Government are not prepared to produce a document that would certainly result from the Bill being passed and the treaty ratified.
There is also the fact that one member of the European Community has said no to the treaty. Unanimity, however, is required. Many people thought that that was it—that we would not proceed with the Bill because, under article 236, there was no unanimity. But some people said, "Oh, no, there is going to be some arrangement." So the Prime Minister said, "All right, we'll pause now," which was quite fair, "but we'll have a vote as to whether to proceed at all."
At Edinburgh a decision was taken by the Council of Ministers that has no vires whatsoever. The Minister of State agreed only yesterday that it makes no difference at all to Denmark's obligations. Denmark's referendum, therefore, is a repeat of something to which the Danish people said no. That is another curious constitutional hiccup along the way.
Then we had the debate which the Prime Minister offered. It was a most dramatic and extraordinary parliamentary occasion and was won by a few votes. All sorts of accusations were made. If that vote had not gone the Prime Minister's way, we should not have embarked upon the proceedings on this Bill, would we—or re-embarked upon them? That was another curious incident in the night, as Conan Doyle would have said.
The Bill is very brief. It details with over 200 articles of a treaty and 16 protocols, but we decided to discuss the contents of that treaty in a tiny Bill. Of course, there are procedural difficulties which you, Mr. Morris, and the rest of us have had to grapple with. The media say, "Can't

Parliament get its act together?", even though Parliament is being asked to digest something that is highly indigestible.
That brings us to the difficulties of today. We all knew, including you, Mr. Morris, that at about 4 o'clock today we should reach crunch time. So many issues had to be decided all at once. We had to know your decisions on amendments Nos. 27 and 75; we had to know what debates we were to have; we had to know which amendments had or had not been selected; we had to know what the result of the vote immediately after the debate would be. Into that maelstrom of decision taking and 10 minutes before that announcement was due to be made, the Government made an announcement of their own, which could change the complexion of the debate altogether.
We are therefore in the position—and you, Mr. Morris, are in the most unenviable one—of having all these things coming together procedurally at one moment. Of course, there are difficulties. I put it to you that the reason for the difficulties is that most constitutional and parliamentary proprieties have been ignored. Nothing so far may have happened that is outside the rules of procedure, but those rules have been stretched to breaking point.
We have to ask who is responsible for stretching constitutional practice and the rules of the House of Commons to breaking point and, moreover, in what cause they have done it. Having asked a rhetorical question, I shall give a factual answer. The cause for which they have done it is to pass power away from the House of Commons. Is that an honourable cause? Is it honourable to stretch the rules of procedure? No.
Therefore, we come to the unenviable decision that you, Mr. Morris, have to make on amendment No. 27. I can see that there are some reasons for it, but I would also suggest to you that there are other reasons which should be taken into account. I put it no higher than that. People look to the House of Commons to provide parliamentary practice as it should be. I would not put it as high as that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that this is the mother of Parliaments. I believe, as Lord St. John Stevas would say, that that is wrong. It is the United Kingdom which is the mother of Parliaments. Nevertheless, the procedures of this place are the envy of some other Parliaments that I could name.
What do we do? The procedure is that we have a motion, question, debate and decision. Everything is decided in that way. That is the sequence of events and the rules are fairly clear. If a motion or an amendment is selected, there is a motion to move it. The Chair then proposes the question that the motion or amendment be made. We then have a debate, followed by a procedure for closing the debate and a decision. I remind the House that, at that point, an hon. Member is entitled to request to withdraw the motion. Only one out of 600 or so hon. Members has to say no for the decision to be made because the question has been put and the debate has been conducted.
People outside and in the world as a whole will see that an important question has been put, whatever its purport and whether it means nothing or everything. They will see that it has been debated, but then, for some curious reason, the House is denied the opportunity of coming to a


decision. They will realise that something is wrong. It will be not only the yellow lights that are flashing, but red ones, and doubly red ones at that.
Just as justice has not only to be done but be seen to be done, so our debates must lead to a decision. If they do not, democracy had better look out.

6 pm

Sir Peter Emery: I am concerned about this debate because it seems that, although it is wrapped in cotton wool, there is a criticism of decisions made by the Chair. Following the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), we are beginning to talk about democracy and also about destruction, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). It is strange that, although more than 240 hon. Members voted for the Bill on Second Reading, some now believe that democracy is being frustrated because a small minority who oppose the Bill find that they cannot get exactly what they want.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Sir Peter Emery: I have no intention of giving way.
Another issue of great importance is the fact that your decisions, Mr. Morris, whenever they are made, should be accepted without question by any hon. Member. If there is any doubt about that——

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In view of the line that my right hon. Friend is taking, will you advise the Committee whether it is in order for hon. Members to change their minds about the Bill? Second Reading took place nearly a year ago and many events have occurred since then. My right hon. Friend is suggesting that it is not in order for hon. Members to change their minds.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I hope that we can now listen to the right hon. Gentleman, who is dealing with important matters.

Sir Peter Emery: Under the Standing Orders as set out in "Erskine May", it is absolutely clear that, in a debate on a motion to report progress, the Chair does not give reasons for its decisions on selecting amendments——

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Is it a new point of order and a matter for the Chair?

Mr. Cash: It is indeed. My right hon. Friend is referring to "Erskine May", a pretty weighty matter in itself. He is telling us that, under Standing Orders, the Chair does not give reasons for the selection or otherwise of amendments. If he had read further and glanced at page 405, he would have seen that it is modern practice, not a question of Standing Orders, whether a reason should or should not be given for selecting amendments. He should perhaps cast his eye down and read a little more carefully.

The Chairman: That has nothing to do with the Chair. We should let the right hon. Gentleman make his speech as he wishes to make it.

Sir Peter Emery: If my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) wants the reference, it is page 405, the third paragraph and the last sentence. That is the end of the sentence.
The Committee knows that there is something inherently wrong with our challenging the Chair on its decision whether or not to select amendments. When that happens, we get ourselves into exactly the situation that we are now in. We are having a debate——

Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend in full flow, but surely the motion we are debating is whether we should report progress. No one is suggesting any criticism of you, Mr. Morris, and my right hon. Friend is wrong to infer that we are.

Sir Peter Emery: Obviously, I have been listening to a different debate from my hon. Friend. If the debate is not about whether an amendment should or should not be selected and voted on, I do not know what the devil it is about. For my hon. Friend to suggest that that is not the point of the motion to report progress shows that he is as much out of touch on this aspect as he is on the whole of Maastricht.
It is absolutely clear to me that the moment the Chair bends over backwards to be generous and give reasons for its decisions, it opens itself to the sort of problems that have arisen today. It is interesting to note that when you decided, Mr. Morris, that there should be a vote on new clause 75 in place of amendment No. 27, there was no major criticism of you. If we had proceeded to a vote on new clause 75 and the Labour party and its allies had won, there would have been much rejoicing and a belief that the Government had been defeated. Now that the Government are willing to accept the new clause, there is no rejoicing. This motion is merely another attempt to snare the Government.
Those who talk about money should reconsider the original debates on the Single European Act. The way in which control over money matters was handed over then is much greater than anything suggested in the Bill. People should realise that there is a lot of pseudo-rhetoric which has nothing to do—[Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has the right to be heard. Hon. Members may not agree with him, but they should listen. He is a senior Member of the House.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have been listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend. I dare say that he is coming to a conclusion. May I simplify matters by suggesting that what he wants to say is that the House should not vote on anything?

Sir Peter Emery: No one has made that suggestion. That is exactly the calibre of debate that we have when we get ourselves into this situation.
I repeat for the last time that in future the Chair might be best advised not to bend over backwards to help some hon. Members who have been pressing for reasons but to reach a decision without giving reasons, as "Erskine May" suggests. We should not then have a debate, and there would not be the sort of problem that we have at the moment.

Mr. Skinner: I do not know whether I shall be smearing anybody, but at the outset I say that the decision made today by the Chair was appalling. I do not accept for one moment anything other than what my instincts tell me.


When I spoke before Easter, when a short statement was made about new clause 75, I stood where I am standing now and said to you, Mr. Morris, that I smelt a rat. I believe that events have proved that I was right.
At the very beginning we were told that our only real opportunity to defeat the Government was the social chapter. It is true that we defeated them on the Committee of the Regions, but nobody really expected that. However, when it comes to main Maastricht issues, everybody—everybody in the media and even millions of people outside who do not follow such events carefully—knew, because of all the comments that had been made, that the social chapter was the one issue on which the Government stood to lose. At the beginning things were difficult because some of the Tories who voted against Maastricht were a bit unsure of their ground on the social chapter—I fully understand that. But after a while they came to the conclusion that that was the only way that they could undermine the treaty. The whole Labour party was going to vote in the same way; the Liberals, for about the only time, were going to vote that way too, and so were all the other minority parties.
What the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) says about people outside not understanding the issue is fanciful. They understand only too well that the Government were in peril on amendment No. 27. When new clause 75 was tabled, some of us suspected that there was some murky work afoot. I have never taken the view—you in the Chair can accept this or not, Mr. Morris—that the Chair of the House of Commons is immune from the Government and the establishment. You can call that criticism, or call it what you like, but I have never varied from that point of view. Events show me that, generally speaking, the Government are expected to get their measures through. That is what it is all for. The establishment is there to win and the Opposition are there to try to defeat it on occasions. I went through the whole period 1974 to 1979, and I know what happens when the Chair is faced with a dilemma. I saw it all then, so I do not want any lectures about the idea that somehow or other Mr. Morris should be immune from criticism.
We are debating an issue that is in a time warp. Maastricht is about yesterday; it is not about tomorrow. The treaty is all about an issue that is past its sell-by date, and some Tory Members know that. They may understand it for reasons different from those that influence us, but they are strong enough to stand up against the treaty. Thousands of other people in the Tory party must support what they have done over the past few weeks.
What has happened with all the jiggery-pokery? When the Government first realised that they were in a mess they brought out the Attorney-General. You can believe him if you like, but he is a member of the Cabinet and his job was to lay a trail to try to separate the Tory rebels, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. That is what the game has been all about from the beginning, because there was a majority for amendment No. 27. How could the Government get off the hook? Then, suddenly, new clause 75 appeared. I do not know who invented that, which heads were discussing the issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "The

Opposition."] I know whose names are on the amendment paper, but I wondered whether there had been other discussions.
Let us assume for a moment that the new clause was tabled innocently. The Government realised straight away what a great opportunity it presented. What a chance to try to shift the debate on to another issue. I believe that the stage was then set for a betrayal. That is why I said what I did at that time.
Today at 1.30 on the BBC Ceefax, there it was. Ceefax said that there would be a ruling in the House of Commons today and that the Chairman of Ways and Means would not allow a vote on amendment No. 27. I came to the House and mentioned that to one or two people and they asked me whether I had got it right. I said that I had read the item several times. So it was no surprise to me when a further trail was woven in the Committee today. However, in the 23 years that I have been in the House, including my early days when I used to listen to the arguments in Committees, I have never known of one occasion when the Chair has not allowed a vote on an amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition—although there have been many occasions when the tin-pot Liberals have moved an amendment and the Chair has said that, on balance, a vote would not be allowed.
6.15 pm
I find it odd that people in the other countries can have a referendum but we cannot even have a vote in the House of Commons. The Danes can have a referendum; they have even had to have a second one, and I hope that people will be singing, "Wonderful, Wonderful Copenhagen" again in a few weeks' time. The Danes might save us all the bother. The French and the Irish can have referendums but the Prime Minister, banging the Dispatch Box, told us, "We do not do things like that here; we discuss things line by line and clause by clause, and we vote on the issues. That is our wonderful parliamentary democracy. It is not for us to have referendums or to go to the people; we have a super democracy that enables us to decide." That was until the Government realised that they would lose. Then they conveniently found ways and means to dodge the column. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ways and Means."] I choose my words carefully.
This is a sad day. You can call it democracy if you like, but I do not believe that Maastricht is about democracy; it is about selling out to Brussels, Germany and all the rest. It sickens me to think that, after the halcyon days of the Common Market are over, some people here still believe in it; they are stuck in that little cocoon in which the Rome treaty and the Maastricht treaty will bring in all the goodies for Britain. Let us understand that treaties do not last for ever. Why should this treaty last much longer than it already has?
What has happened today is a disgrace. Millions of people out there will say, "Why should we bother sending MPs to Parliament? Why get involved?" When Members get to Parliament some of them betray their promises; I understand that. They may not do it for Machiavellian reasons, but none the less they do it. But we have seen an example of something else today, and it has not been about run of the mill Members of Parliament or Governments; it has been a conspiracy in which the decision has been made that, having been prevented by the Government from having a referendum, the British people are to be stopped from even having a vote, through their representatives, on


the crucial issue. Everybody knows—the dogs were barking it in Bolsover—that the Government were in trouble on amendment No. 27. Every inch of print on Maastricht has been mainly about this issue, as have all the comments that have been made. Then we have the appalling experience of finding out that there will not be a vote.
They call this place the mother of Parliaments. They tell the eastern countries to copy us, that they have never understood democracy. They say, let us take it to Czechoslovakia, Romania and Bulgaria; let us tell them how to do things, because we are super-democratic. Yet, when we can have as many votes as we like on all the little issues, when 60 people go into the Lobby, on the crucial issue, when it seemed that the Government were in peril, the official Opposition and the other Opposition parties, and those on the Conservative Benches who were going to join us, have been deprived of the crucial vote. It stinks to high heaven.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: There have been many tributes to the Chair during this Committee, and I would like to pay tribute to the Chairman for the imaginative way in which the proceedings have been conducted this afternoon.
We had to imagine that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was standing when the Division was called; we had to imagine that he was wearing a hat when he was seated and raised a point of order, because he got that wrong; and we have to imagine that he is listening to the debate on reporting progress—a debate that was accepted on his motion.
Just to remind the Committee of what is happening, we are debating a three-clause Bill that fills one side of a sheet of paper. It is a debate which has been going on, in effect, for nearly a year, following a Second Reading in which the House, with a majority of well over 200, gave its blessing to the principle of the Bill. It is my belief that when we come to the Third Reading, we will have a majority of between 250 and 300.
I believe that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was right in saying that the Government's tactics were designed to divide hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who are flatly against the Bill, because they are flatly against the European Community; from the Labour party——

Mr. Wilkinson: No: it is about a referendum.

Mr. Bottomley: If my hon. Friend will listen to me with his ears, rather than use his mouth, for a moment, I will make my point.
The Government are trying—I think rightly—to divide those who are against the European Community from the Labour party, whose official policy is to support the Bill. When the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) ended his speech with a great shout about the powers that he believed were to be transferred to the European Community, he was shouting against the official policy of the Labour party.
One of the difficulties for people trying to follow these debates is that they get the impression that the Labour party has lost its principles over Europe. They expect the Labour party to be opposed to Europe. The Labour party has changed its policy, but many of its supporters and many of its Back Benchers reject that change of policy. That is why the present leader of the Labour party, who in the late 1970s voted against his party when it was opposed

to the European Community, is now supporting the European Community against some of the votes in the Committee that would make it possible for us to endorse the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
I believe that it comes down to the disappointment of those who expected to get approval of new clause 75, or at least to have a jolly good row and argument about it, and would have lived with the fact that they could not get a vote on amendment No. 27. Now that they have heard that the Government are minded to accept new clause 75, they are in a similar position to Lord Denning, I think it was, who, when he heard that the House of Lords had upheld his view on an appeal, shook his head sadly and said that he still thought that he was right.
My view is that those who are desperately keen to use the social chapter element to try to wreck the progress of this Bill through the House are in great fear that, by getting a vote on the social chapter after the Bill has had its Third Reading, they will have to decide whether to vote against the social chapter, which they are against, or to vote for it in the hope that it will do more damage.
In the mid-1980s I was asked by a Belgian Minister why so many people in Britain opposed the fifth company directive and Vredeling—in effect, the predecesors of the social chapter. I said that half the people who opposed them had never read them, and the other half had read them. He said that nobody had ever explained it to him that clearly before.
We have to accept that the social chapter does not apply to people in most white collar occupations; the limits on hours and the like do not apply to European Commissioners. The social chapter applies only to working people, who are the ones who get the overtime from the extra hours.
The fact that the Labour party is arguing for that and being joined by some of my hon. Friends demonstrates clearly that the Committee ought not to pass this motion, but that we ought to make progress by returning to the new clauses and amendments, and to the Bill itself. I hope that within a few weeks we shall be able to say to the country, as I say to my association, that the Bill should be passed and we should go on trying to build a better future for this country in partnership within Europe.

Mr. George Stevenson: I have one basic proposition to offer in support of the motion that the Committee report progress. As a relatively new Member—although I do not know how long one can continue to describe oneself as new—I found the contribution of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) very flippant. I believe that all hon. Members, irrespective of their points of view, must recognise that there are serious and fundamental issues at stake.
If new clause 75 was ever a time bomb—with all due respect to my hon. Friends, I doubt that—it has become a damp squib. That is because we have had a shameful example of manoeuvring by the Government this afternoon and we should not be duped by it.
Many of us were in the Committee, Mr. Morris, when you took your original decision and I do not believe that any rules were breached. I believe that your decision was reached in good faith and that you continue to operate in that way. When the decision was referred to by right hon. and hon. Members at that time, you beseeched us to read new clause 75 before making up our minds.
I left the Committee worried about this, but nevertheless prepared to accept that you had taken the view that this fundamental issue of the social chapter needed to be debated and voted on by the Committee and by the House. You had decided that new clause 75 made it possible to meet this objective and was therefore the new clause that should be voted on. But there was never any doubt in my mind—although I am prepared to accept your advice, Mr. Morris, and that of hon. Members with more experience than I have—that the Committee wanted to vote on the clause concerned with the social chapter.
We are now to be denied that right and I am not prepared to consider satisfactory the point made by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who said that there would perhaps be an opportunity at Report stage for this vital issue to be resurrected. There is no guarantee of that, as right hon. and hon. Members have said. Therefore, this fundamental issue will remain subject to a decision that may or may not allow the will and wishes of the House—or allow the will and wishes of your good self, Mr. Morris, as you took the original decision—to be expressed through a vote.

Mr. Cash: As the hon. Gentleman has recalled the suggestion made by the Chairman of Ways and Means that he should read new clause 75 with more care, did he also note that the Chairman said of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham):
I have given a substantive answer and made an offer to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads new clause 75 with a little more care."—[Official Report, 30 March 1993; Vol. 222, c. 164.]
In other words, there was a supposed trade-off being offered between amendments Nos. 27 and 75. The Chairman went on, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), to say: "I listen to submissions." In other words, we can now make indirect submissions through the debate, and that will, I hope, be an oppportunity for the Chairman to listen to the respectful remarks currently being made.

Mr. Stevenson: I am prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's reading of the record because that is a matter of fact, but I cannot accept or otherwise the interpretation he puts on it, as I am sure he will understand.
In all the deliberations of the Committee on this fundamental issue, there has never been any doubt that, one way or another, it must be voted on. I wanted a vote on amendment No. 27 because it had been debated at length. In my naivety, perhaps, I thought that that would be the case as, I have no doubt, did the Government at that time. I agreed entirely with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about new clause 75, which I have read on many occasions. I certainly do not agree with the interpretation of many right hon. Members and hon. Members that it is an alternative to amendment No. 27. Nevertheless, one is prepared to accept that there are different points of view. I repeat that in all this discussion there has never been any doubt that a vote should be taken.
The machinations of certain hon. Members, who want to sweep the issue under the carpet and to pretend that nothing has happened so we should continue with the

debates, are not good enough. If such machinations had happened in local authorities, those same hon. Members would be jumping to their feet and condemning those local authorities as undemocratic. That is what we are in danger of becoming here.
I hope that the motion will be supported. If there was ever a time that the Committee needed to stand back and to reflect on what was happening and to what we were being asked to agree, this is it. I beseech the Committee to support the motion. Let us reflect on the situation, which has changed as a result of what I consider to be the quick and clever manoeuvre by the Government of seeking to support new clause 75.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: We are debating a motion to report progress. For me, progress has been too rapid. Earlier, Mr. Morris, you drew attention to the number of days during which the Bill has been debated in Committee. I reflect that we had, for example, fewer than six hours on citizenship. That is the most profound concept, which touches on who we are and what we are about—the very nature of our society. Yet in 1981, when you and I were both Members of Parliament, Mr. Morris, we spent 51 days on the British Nationality Bill, with a guillotine, and with three days on Report. How can anyone think that 22 or 23 days is sufficient to discuss the nature of the British constitution, which is fundamental to our view of democracy, and how we control the laws, the Government and the instruments of power in our society?
The Government send junior Ministers to argue what they claim is their central policy—the ratification of Maastricht. We should remember that the intent of the ratification of Maastricht is to remove beyond the call of the British people and the British voter powers to affect the central finances of their state. That will determine their levels of employment, their interest rates, output and deflation which are central to the control of the civil society of the United Kingdom.
Intolerant Members say, "How outrageous it is that we have spent as many as five hours discussing this point." I am glad that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is here. Now that I have him in my sights, I know that he is attending part of the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is a cheer. All too often the impatient outside are those who are not prepared to attend the debate inside. They can therefore announce that these are trivial matters. In fact, the Bill contains acceptance of the concept that its measures should be irrevocable and irreversible. There is no mechanism in the Bill for winding back its provisions, despite the disaster of the exchange rate mechanism.
An important point worries me about your ruling, Mr. Morris. I share the view of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The House of Commons and its Committees must be able to discuss everything, including the conduct of the Chair. That point is at the heart of how we satisfy the needs of our constituents. I do not make the point lightly. When I watch the progress of business—I know that I must have misunderstood, Mr. Morris—I have seen you share the attention of the Deputy Chief Whip, I have seen you looking at the clock at quarter to the hour and I have seen a nod go between you. I foolishly conceived that as an agreement that there would be an acceptance of a closure motion. I know that that must be


wrong, so I make the point with diffidence. However, the watching of each day and the timing of each debate has caused us to gallop through some of the most profound concepts.
We had a Home Secretary who was not quite sure whether the Queen became a citizen. He saw no reason why not. The matter is taken with that amount of levity. We are talking profoundly about our institutions; that is all that the debate has been about. That is why, when we argue our contentions, we think that it is appropriate and proper that the Bill should have been proceeded with at a more gentle pace. The constitution of the United States was not formed in 22 days. The Government, no less, cannot send more than two Cabinet Ministers—their Front-Bench team—to argue propositions that affect the nature of our constitution. I am afraid that that approach has characterised the debate.
The principle, which I raised with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), to whom I am extremely grateful for introducing this debate, that the Chair may now not accept amendments that would allow us to vote on finance during the passage of the Finance Bill is important. What is left to us of our control over the economy will require us from time to time to vote on it. Yet no Minister makes much of that. Ministers say that these are not considerable matters.
Our argument is that this is not finally a matter for the House of Commons, because we are only the surrogates for the people out there. I, like all hon. Members, stand here because people voted for me. We are trying now to take away the effectiveness of that vote. That decision should be taken solemnly, yet we cannot table an amendment requiring a referendum because, we are told, there is no money resolution. That is curious, because the Bill is an amendment to an earlier Act that had a money resolution.
We asked the Government how, if amendment No. 27 were passed, they could pay money to the other 11 parties, outside the treaty itself. How could that be? How is it that two answers are sometimes cited? One is that the original money resolution of 1972 gives authority for every subsequent payment and therefore will be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Yet when I or any hon. Member says that there should be a referendum, we then have to go round the most fanciful track, play cat and mouse with the Chair, go upstairs to Mr. McKay to seek advice and we are then told that it can only be done in a courted and difficult manner. Why can we not be direct on such an important matter?
If the ruling stays or sticks, the country and the House, until such time as the powers are transferred, can have no certainty that it can earnestly, properly and appropriately discuss the business of the British people. The Government are prepared to cast away the powers by which they may save them.
When we come to the Budget, which concerns after all the bill for the exchange rate mechanism, and the finance for all the extra costs on electricity and gas because of coal that have to be paid for by pensioners, all those costs result from the Bill arid the ERM.
We know full well that the ERM, on the day's negotiations and failures of businesses, costs between £10 billion and £20 billion. We are hoping to raise on that wretched energy measure, which is a temporary, emergency expedient on 17·5 per cent. of fuel bills, only about £6 billion or £7 billion over three years. It is

nonsense, yet, to save the concept of Maastricht, we are prepared to expend the wealth and well-being of ordinary people in Britain.
We are raising taxes, we are setting aside election pledges that we solemnly gave because of the effects of the ERM, yet because we have progressed the Bill in the way that we have, how do we discuss the ERM? I did not get to speak on it—of course not. In debate after debate, many hon. Members have failed to get the opportunity to speak, and that is in Committee. Ministers tell us that they do not intend to give way to people who want to wreck the Bill.
Let us look at the sequence of the Bill. We are told that we have had an important vote on it. During the general election the treaty was not available in English. It was not published until one week before Second Reading. All the new Members, who now form a large part of the House, had one week in which to weigh the contentions. The Government claim, by some amazing transference, that a mandate was secured on something that the public could not have read, even if they had wished to read it.
Now that we come to take the matter seriously—I have tried to be a serious member of the Committee and have sat through the long hours, and tried to move or help my hon. Friends move amendments to be debated—we have not been called. We are told by the Chair that because we have not debated the issue on which we have not been called, we are not allowed to vote on it although it was in a group of amendments and we made references to it or tried to vote on it under an umbrella.
I return to citizenship, on which we spent less than six hours, and again I use the comparison of the British Nationality Act 1981. How much more trivial that was because of one important difference—we could change it. If we got it wrong, the House had the power to call it back, but under this Maastricht nonsense, what is the mechanism by which we may call it back?
If there is anger in my speech, it is at the facetiousness with which the Committee is treated, when I see new Members such as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) getting red in the face and pointing to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and shouting out, "You are finished, Bill Cash." Why? Because an hon. Member wished to raise matters that are meant to be disposed of for ever, not just for this year or next year, not determined by a general election, as all that has been swept aside.
We are shifting our seat of government from the control of the people to an unelected bureaucracy, a Council of Ministers that meets in secret who will rule on transport, education and the whole range of apparatus of the state, including setting up an independent central bank well beyond the call of any one individual nation.
When we grind on about the consequences of the ERM and when the Government bring it back in the middle of the night, as they did two weeks ago, and when they guillotine it like this, I learn one thing from the progress of the debate. I think that the guillotine is God-awful. The Government used to tremble before they introduced it because it is an abatement of the freedom of speech of the House which is the representative of freedom of speech. I have now seen that, with a compliant Chairman of Ways and Means, one can effect the guillotine much more by the closure.
I say all those things advisedly because I have had 22 days to reflect on progress and there is no purpose to my being in the House if I cannot speak clearly, loudly and


honourably the beliefs that I hold for my nation. If I cannot do that, and if we are closed down, the process of today whereby a clear precedent is being set means that, if we are ever in opposition and wish to vote on something, the Chairman of Ways and Means, on a matter affecting the finance and taxation of the people, may say no.

Dr. John Cunningham: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 556, Noes 9

Division No.231]
[6.45 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Adley, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Ainger, Nick
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Alexander, Richard
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Budgen, Nicholas


Allen, Graham
Burden, Richard


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Ancram, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Butler, Peter


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Byers, Stephen


Armstrong, Hilary
Caborn, Richard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Callaghan, Jim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashby, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Aspinwall, Jack
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Canavan, Dennis


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cann, Jamie


Austin-Walker, John
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Carrington, Matthew


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cash, William


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Chapman, Sydney


Barnes, Harry
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bates, Michael
Churchill, Mr


Batiste, Spencer
Clapham, Michael


Battle, John
Clappison, James


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, Andrew F.
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Benton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coe, Sebastian


Bermingham, Gerald
Coffey, Ann


Berry, Dr. Roger
Colvin, Michael


Betts, Clive
Congdon, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Connarty, Michael


Blair, Tony
Conway, Derek


Blunkett, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Boateng, Paul
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Booth, Hartley
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Corbett, Robin


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bowden, Andrew
Cormack, Patrick


Bowis, John
Corston, Ms Jean


Boyce, Jimmy
Couchman, James


Boyes, Roland
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Cran, James


Brandreth, Gyles
Cummings, John





Cunliffe, Lawrence
Gerrard, Neil


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Gill, Christopher


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Gillan, Cheryl


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Dafis, Cynog
Golding, Mrs Llin


Dalyell, Tam
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Darling, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Davidson, Ian
Gordon, Mildred


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Gorst, John


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Gould, Bryan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Graham, Thomas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Day, Stephen
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Denham, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Devlin, Tim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Dewar, Donald
Grocott, Bruce


Dickens, Geoffrey
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Dicks, Terry
Gunnell, John


Dixon, Don
Hague, William


Dobson, Frank
Hain, Peter


Donohoe, Brian H.
Hall, Mike


Dorrell, Stephen
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Dover, Den
Hampson, Dr Keith


Dowd, Jim
Hannam, Sir John


Duncan, Alan
Hanson, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Hardy, Peter


Dunn, Bob
Hargreaves, Andrew


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Harris, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Harvey, Nick


Dykes, Hugh
Haselhurst, Alan


Eagle, Ms Angela
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Eastham, Ken
Hawkins, Nick


Eggar, Tim
Hayes, Jerry


Elletson, Harold
Heald, Oliver


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Enright, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Etherington, Bill
Henderson, Doug


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Hendry, Charles


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Heppell, John


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Hicks, Robert


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Evennett, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Faber, David
Hinchliffe, David


Fabricant, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Home Robertson, John


Fishburn, Dudley
Hood, Jimmy


Fisher, Mark
Hoon, Geoffrey


Flynn, Paul
Horam, John


Forman, Nigel
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Forth, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Hoyle, Doug


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Fraser, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Freeman, Roger
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


French, Douglas
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Fry, Peter
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Fyfe, Maria
Hunter, Andrew


Galbraith, Sam
Ingram, Adam


Gale, Roger
Jack, Michael


Gallie, Phil
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Galloway, George
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Gapes, Mike
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Gardiner, Sir George
Jamieson, David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Janner, Greville


Garnier, Edward
Jessel, Toby


Garrett, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


George, Bruce
Johnston, Sir Russell






Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Merchant, Piers


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Michael, Alun


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Miller, Andrew


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Milligan, Stephen


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Mills, Iain


Jowell, Tessa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Keen, Alan
Moate, Sir Roger


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Monro, Sir Hector


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Key, Robert
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Khabra, Piara S.
Morgan, Rhodri


King, Rt Hon Tom
Morley, Elliot


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Kirkwood, Archy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Moss, Malcolm


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Mullin, Chris


Knox, David
Murphy, Paul


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Needham, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Nelson, Anthony


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Neubert, Sir Michael


Legg, Barry
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Leigh, Edward
Nicholls, Patrick


Leighton, Ron
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Norris, Steve


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Lidington, David
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Lightbown, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Litherland, Robert
Olner, William


Livingstone, Ken
O'Neill, Martin


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Llwyd, Elfyn
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Lord, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Loyden, Eddie
Page, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Paice, James


Lynne, Ms Liz
Parry, Robert


McAllion, John
Patnick, Irvine


McAvoy, Thomas
Patten, Rt Hon John


McCartney, Ian
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Macdonald, Calum
Pendry, Tom


McFall, John
Pickles, Eric


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Pickthall, Colin


MacKay, Andrew
Pike, Peter L.


McKelvey, William
Pope, Greg


Mackinlay, Andrew
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Maclean, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


McLeish, Henry
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Maclennan, Robert
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Powell, William (Corby)


McMaster, Gordon
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


McNamara, Kevin
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


McWilliam, John
Prescott, John


Madden, Max
Primarolo, Dawn


Madel, David
Purchase, Ken


Mahon, Alice
Quin, Ms Joyce


Maitland, Lady Olga
Radice, Giles


Major, Rt Hon John
Randall, Stuart


Malone, Gerald
Rathbone, Tim


Mandelson, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


Mans, Keith
Redwood, John


Marek, Dr John
Reid, Dr John


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Richards, Rod


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Richardson, Jo


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Robathan, Andrew


Martlew, Eric
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Maxton, John
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Meacher, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Meale, Alan
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)





Rogers, Allan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rooker, Jeff
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Rooney, Terry
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomason, Roy


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rowlands, Ted
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Ruddock, Joan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Tipping, Paddy


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Salmond, Alex
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trend, Michael


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trimble, David


Sheerman, Barry
Trotter, Neville


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tyler, Paul


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaz, Keith


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Viggers, Peter


Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walden, George


Short, Clare
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Simpson, Alan
Wallace, James


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walley, Joan


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Ward, John


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watson, Mike


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Watts, John


Soames, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Soley, Clive
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Spearing, Nigel
Whitney, Ray


Speed, Sir Keith
Whittingdale, John


Spellar, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Spencer, Sir Derek
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wigley, Dafydd


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilkinson, John


Spring, Richard
Willetts, David


Sproat, Iain
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Wilson, Brian


Steinberg, Gerry
Winnick, David


Stephen, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stevenson, George
Wise, Audrey


Stewart, Allan
Wolfson, Mark


Stott, Roger
Wood, Timothy


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Jack
Wright, Dr Tony


Streeter, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Sumberg, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sykes, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)





NOES


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Knapman, Roger



Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Peter Luff and Mr. Andrew Rowe.


Marlow, Tony



Redmond, Martin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it not an extraordinary event in the House of Commons that at the end of a Committee stage, the Government fail to produce tellers, having shouted in the


first instance against the motion? Can the country outside reflect on the seriousness of Her Majesty's Government not even having the courage to produce tellers to allow a vote to proceed with their own business? Given that already today they have announced that they will not contest new clause 75 or oppose amendment No. 420, are they not a Government in minority, without authority who now run away from every possibility of being defeated on the Floor of the House?

The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Orders of the Day — Dovelands School (Leicester)

Mr. Greville Janner: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the problems of Dovelands school in my constituency. I am relieved to be doing so now, rather than in the early hours of the morning—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is extremely discourteous to the hon. and learned Member who is speaking if hon. Members make a great deal of noise when leaving the Chamber. Will they please leave quickly and quietly?

Mr. Janner: Noise or no noise, I rejoice at the opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment now, rather than in the early hours of the morning. Whatever little one may have to thank the railroad strikers for, at least we have the knowledge that, together, Government and Opposition Members have conspired to debate the Adjournment at such an early hour.
It is a tradition that on the Adjournment Back-Bench Members can raise the problems of one comparatively small school in one constituency. Even so, in this case those problems are reflected in all constituencies, for I doubt whether there is one in the country that does not have a school that is afflicted with the misery suffered by the Dovelands school in Leicester, West.
What is wrong with the school? There is certainly nothing wrong with the teaching, the pupils or the parents. On the contrary, it is a very fine school. The buildings in which the pupils are taught—the places where the teachers work and the children are required to learn—are the problem. I have visited the school dozens of times since I was elected 23 years ago. It is a happy place, but the school has been allowed to develop through a series of what are called temporary mobile classrooms. I suppose that they are temporary, in the sense that we are all temporary on this earth, but they are about as temporary as the prefabs were. You might just remember the prefabs from your youth, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am referring to a temporary joy which seems to go on for ever, and as it goes on, the classrooms deteriorate. Indeed, some of them are so bad that I have seen them propped up with timbers in the winter, with water dripping in, with damp on the walls and with windows that do not open. One of the temporary mobile classrooms is a caravan that was donated by the parents.
Another, believe it or not, is the sole place in the school where the children can gather. Because the floor of that building is defective, because heaters have had to be fixed and because there are no proper fire exits, only about 100 children of the 300 to 400 in the school are allowed in there at a time. Because it is so defective, the much-praised national curriculum cannot be taught because PE cannot be conducted in the classroom. In other words, four out of five pupils in the school are taught in temporary permanent mobile classrooms that were built in the 1930s.
All 350 pupils at the school use outside lavatories, whatever the weather, and that is a disgrace. There is no sick room in the main part of the school, a perfectly good building that has been allowed to decay. With the windows unopened, roofs leaking and floor damp and uneven, it is the sort of school to which none of us would want our children to go. And that is the real test. If hon. Members


said, "It is the sort of building in which our children can be educated," it would be fine for our constituents' children. But if we say, "We will not let them go there because it is unhygienic, below standard and, above all, dangerous," the place is not fit for the children of our constituents.
I will describe some of the dangers. One of the heaters in the so-called main hall caught fire. The caretaker entered the place a few weeks ago to find it filled with smoke. A defective heater had caused another fire. Instead of replacing the classroom, they replaced the heater. A chunk of copper piping about 3 ft long fell from one of the gutters into the playground just after the children had gone back into the school. It would have killed an adult, let alone a child.
I had been planning a wicked little enterprise. The piece of piping is on its way to Parliament. It was due to arrive here at about 9.30 in time for the 10 o'clock Adjournment debate. It was to have been smuggled gently into the Chamber through the main doors and, though fearing a rebuke from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hoped to show the object to the House. It is so dangerous and defective that hon. Members would have appreciated to the full, from seeing it, why the parents of the children who go to the school are up in arms, why the teachers, governors and parents have prepared a parliamentary petition and why the local councillors, whatever their political parties. have come together and said, "We cannot allow this to go on."
I may be asked what good an Adjournment debate is in such circumstances. At least it gives us a chance to explain to Parliament what is going on in a school that is representative of many thousands of schools for which there is insufficient money. We are able, as a result of the debate, to continue the campaign of the parents, governors and teachers to get action before there is tragedy. I hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate will give hope to the school and will assure those who run it and work in it that they will be looked after.
Naturally, I have written to various Ministers about the situation at the school. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State wrote telling me:
We are very concerned about the state of Dovelands School.
I was glad to hear that, and when asked what he intended to do about it, he wrote:
This Government is committed to improving the condition of school buildings generally.
That is fine. They intend to improve matters generally; but what about specific problems? If the Government are so committed to improving school conditions and buildings, they should provide money to enable Leicestershire county council and the local education authority to fix Dovelands school.
But the Government blame the members of the local authority and say, in effect, "They have their money and it is up to them to decide how to use it," and the local authority says, "Blame the Government. They do not give us enough money to fix the school, so we cannot do the necessary work." The Government blame the local authority, which blames the Government. The result is that the school is a danger. It is not a worthy place in which children can or should be taught.
What is to happen? The LEA says, "We hope to allocate money in due course, when we have it. We cannot do anything just now because we do not have the cash." I

say on behalf of the parents, teachers, pupils and governors that that is not good enough. A commitment to improve the buildings in time will not do. If the Government do not believe that it is a top priority to have school buildings in proper condition, I do not know what is.
It is more important to have school buildings safe than to spend millions of pounds on testing children against the wishes of their teachers, or even in accordance with their teachers' wishes. I am referring to a job that must be tackled at once. The director of education wrote to me saying:
The Dovelands project is not the highest current priority, although much needed, as a handful of schools are considered to be even more urgently in need of major investment.
One wonders what they are like. If Dovelands is not the worst, the worst must be an appalling slum and an incredible danger.
The Government say that they are concerned about Dovelands, but they do nothing but blame the local authority. The director of education is deeply concerned about the school, but has reported that no money will be available until 1995 at the earliest, and he blames the Government. Each blames the other and nobody gets anything done. Everybody throws up his hands and says, "It is not us. Blame someone else."
I have a horror that stems from an incident in Braunstone, where we begged for a new road to be made safe. No one would spend the money. The Government blamed the local authority, and the highway authority blamed the Government. There was then an awful tragedy when a child in my constituency was killed on that road. Local parents protested, as I did, and within months the money appeared out of thin air so that there would not be another tragedy.
I do not want the same to happen with Dovelands school. I do not want the authorities to wait until there is a tragedy—until there is a fire. In one of the early fires at the school, a child's sari was set alight. By a miracle, she was fine and survived. In another incident, a child had just entered a classroom when guttering fell that could have killed the child. Are we waiting for another tragedy? Then, I guarantee, the local education authority would find the money and the Government would contribute.
We ought not to wait for tragedies. We ought to act now. Dovelands is a fine school with a great reputation. It has an excellent, kind and tremendous head teacher. It has a devoted staff and governors who care about the school. The school has lovely pupils in a happy atmosphere. But no one should be forced to teach or to learn in a crumbling school that is in a disgraceful, dangerous condition. There should be action before there is a tragedy.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for raising this important subject. Having worked with my hon. and learned Friend in Leicester for a number of years, I am well aware—as are his constituents—of his great concern for the education system. He spoke eloquently, as always, about the problems that affect Dovelands school. I am happy to support his excellent work.
Not long ago, we jointly campaigned on behalf of another Leicestershire school, Abbey primary school. My hon. and learned Friend's remarks were very much a


reflection of that campaign. His description of Dovelands school reflected also the problems that are to be found in the city of Leicester—crumbling schools, and the inability of the local authority to provide resources to make those schools safe. One cannot underestimate the effect of the condition of those schools on the morale of teachers, ancillary staff and the children themselves.
If we want to produce good citizens for the future, we must do exactly as my hon. and learned Friend says—provide resources to create the climate and conditions that will enable our children to be taught in schools that are happy places in which their education and skills can be developed and enhanced.
I hope that the Minister will accede to my hon. and learned Friend's requests. Is it not true that the resources made available by the Government to Leicestershire county council have declined in real terms over the past few years? That is not the fault of the local authority. Recently, it had to set a budget that will unfortunately mean education cuts. The Labour group was in the forefront of the campaign to ensure that there were no cuts—but that local authority and others throughout the country are having to cut back expenditure on repairing schools and stopping them from falling further into decay as a result of cuts in Government expenditure.
When the Government refuse to make available the resources necessary to allow local authorities to undertake basic maintenance and repair work, the consequences are such as those described by my hon. and learned Friend, and young children—vulnerable members of our society—are put at risk.
I admire greatly my hon. and learned Friend's campaign following the death of a young girl in Braunstone. He said well before that tragedy that there ought to be sufficient traffic calming measures to ensure that there would be no accidents. Nobody listened. It was only after the campaign that followed the death of that unfortunate child that something was done.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give in and will award Leicestershire county council the resources that it needs. Perhaps he will even ring-fence them, to ensure that they are devoted to Dovelands school. There are many schools in my constituency, as in that of my hon. and learned Friend, that ought to be funded. I hope that the Minister will accede to my hon. and learned Friend's request and will grant the resources for which he has asked.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on his good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate. It is a pleasure for me, as a fellow east midlands Member, to respond to his comments. I associate with those remarks the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), although I do not always agree with his comments as to where the blame might lay in this particular case. If it is not inappropriate, I extend my personal felicitations to the hon. Member for Leicester, East on his recent change of status.

Mr. Janner: And to his wife.

Mr. Boswell: Indeed—quite right.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West spoke eloquently about the poor condition of the school buildings and the impact that that has on pupils and teachers. That is clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs. But his concerns would be more properly addressed to Leicestershire local education authority, which maintains those schools. The LEA is, accordingly, responsible for ensuring that the premises of county schools are safe, in good condition and suitable for their purpose.
Under the local authority capital finance system it is for Leicestershire to decide, within the level of resources available to it, how much to spend on education capital projects. Within that total it is again entirely for the county to decide which projects are priorities. If the Dovelands schools are judged pressing priorities, Leicestershire has the flexibility and the resources to refurbish or replace the buildings.
The hon. and learned Gentleman might find it helpful if I said a little more about how the capital finance system works. Local authorities are given permission to borrow up to a certain level to fund capital programmes for all their services, including education. This borrowing limit, the basic credit approval, is not, however, the limit on local authorities' capital spending. They can also, if they wish, use funds transferred from their revenue budgets for capital purposes. They are also able to invest capital receipts. Leicestershire and other LEAs can take advantage of the relaxation of the rules on the use of capital receipts announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement. That effectively means that, until the end of this year, LEAs will be able to spend 100 per cent., rather than 50 per cent., of receipts realised, which will provide valuable additional capital resources for all LEAs.
Leicestershire's basic credit approval for 1993–94 of more than £14 million covers the capital requirements of all its services, not just education. It is calculated by reference to the individual annual capital guidelines—ACGs—issued for each of those services, including education. The county's education annual capital guidelines for the current year is just under £7 million.
In distributing the national total of annual capital guidelines to LEAs in 1993–94, we gave priority to three categories—commitments arising from projects allowed for under previous ACGs; the provision of new places in areas of population growth, which we term "basic needs"; and implementing cost-effective schemes to remove surplus school places.
Within the second priority category of basic need, we also cover projects that are termed exceptional basic need. They cover situations where school premises are no longer repairable in practice and where no alternative provision exists. Leicestershire made a small bid in that exceptional basic need category for part of the Dovelands junior school in 1993–94, which was accepted in its entirety. I shall return to that later.
After the three national priority categories are covered, the remaining ACG resources are largely distributed by formula to contribute towards the cost of improving existing school buildings. These national priority criteria were agreed with the local authority associations and retain the support of LEAs. How the categories are defined and details of how LEA bids will be assessed are set out each year in letters to LEAs inviting bids for ACGs. Generally speaking, these letters are issued in May or June.


The deadline for bids is usually in September or October and the ACGs are announced in December for the following financial year.
Leicestershire has done well under the system. Education ACGs alone have totalled over £22 million in the past three years, including the current financial year. While ACG bids from LEAs always exceed the total available, Leicestershire has received a much greater proportion of its bids than the national average—over 42 per cent. compared with the national average of 27 per cent. in the current year. In particular, the county has received substantial cover in the commitments and basic needs categories. In contrast, however, Leicestershire has made few bids in the other high priority category of surplus place removal projects. Reorganisation schemes which remove surplus places generate revenue savings. They also attract sufficient and significant capital support within ACGs for investment in improving the stock of existing premises.
I understand that the county currently has a significant number of surplus places, particularly in the secondary sector where it approaches 20 per cent. of the stock. Surplus places are a drain on the system. They take up resources which could be available for other uses, including refurbishment works. I hope that the county of Leicestershire will look carefully at this issue to see what savings can be made for reinvestment elsewhere.
The county has also done very well recently in the distribution of unallocated supplementary credit approvals. These are resources which are held back each year when annual capital guidelines are distributed in December. They are largely earmarked to cover projects arising from proposals to remove surplus places that have not yet been decided. As some of those proposals are rejected or withdrawn, the supplementary credit approvals are available for redistribution.
These unallocated resources are distributed to LEAs after careful consideration of the bids that have been received. Most of these relate to urgent refurbishment work at existing schools. In the 1991–92 financial year, the county's bid for these unallocated resources listed a number of schools where urgent work was necessary. Many LEAs submitted bids. Exceptionally, we were able to allocate supplementary credit approvals for work at three Leicestershire schools—Abbey primary, Marriott and Charnwood.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West will recall the problems at Abbey primary in particular. He made many representations on the problem that that school faced, as he has done about Dovelands schools. I am sure he appreciated the help that we were able to provide. The allocations for these three projects totalled over £2 million. Leicestershire also received an unallocated supplementary credit approval in 1992–93 for work at another Leicester school, Sir Jonathan North. Those schools were seen by the county as its most urgent priorities. The exceptional assistance that we have given for work at the schools should mean that the LEA is now better placed to carry out work at other priority schools.
In submitting the earlier bids, Leicestershire did not actually include the Dovelands schools. That is a matter for the county. It is, of course, open to Leicestershire to submit a bid for any unallocated supplementary credit approvals that there may be in the current financial year. Any such bids, including bids relating to the Dovelands schools, will be treated on their merits. This is an option

that the LEA will want to consider carefully. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Leicester, East will wish to press this possibility. The most important matter at this stage is for Leicestershire to decide what needs to be done at the schools. Having done so, it can then decide what time scale is preferred and what priority to give to the work.
I understand that the county's bid under the annual capital guidelines for 1993–94 included support for the removal of temporary buildings at Dovelands junior school. That bid was made in our high priority category of exceptional basic need. The bid was accepted in its entirety and support totalling £190,000 was therefore included in the 1993–94 annual capital guideline.
In the longer term, I understand that the LEA plans to provide both schools with new premises. I also understand however, that it remains undecided on how best to do that. I believe that the governors of both schools are currently being consulted on a number of options, including rebuilding on the same site or on a new site or sites.

Mr. Vaz: The House was moved by the description of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) of the current safety standards at Dovelands school. Surely the Minister accepts that the situation there is not dissimilar; in fact, it is worse than the situation that we described in support of the Abbey campaign. Why does the Minister have to wait for another bid? Why does not he accept what my hon. and learned Friend has said and treat the issue as a priority?

Mr. Boswell: As I have explained, it is for the local education authority to decide its priorities. As I have said, the LEA's priority was to go for the Abbey school and the other two schools first. At that time Dovelands was not mentioned, although it has been mentioned now.

Mr. Janner: We are back to the position that I outlined. The Minister says, "Blame Leicestershire local authority." When it is approached, it will say, "Blame the Government." Will the Minister at least undertake to send someone senior to see the school, to inspect it and consider whether there is the sort of danger that I have described? If there is, will the Minister please be kind enough to give some hope that the Government will intervene to assist? We are not talking politics, because nobody can get anything done at the school. This is a hung authority. It is a matter of humanity, kindness and decency to give some reassurance to the parents and not simply say, "Blame Leicestershire authority." Will the Minister undertake to send an inspector or someone else to look at the school, and will he give it some hope?

Mr. Boswell: I referred obliquely to statutory safety obligations on local authorities in relation to school premises. I am aware of the political situation in the county. I was extensively briefed by my officials about the local situation. I shall certainly draw this debate to the attention of the local education authority and see whether my officials are entirely satisfied that the authority is aware of the situation on the ground.
I do not resile from the principle that it is for the local authority to submit bids. We are not apportioning blame. There is a mechanism, which I have been at some pains to explain. The authority should avail itself of that


mechanism, as it has done on previous occasions with success, and matters will then be considered on their merits.

Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for giving way. We have until 10 o'clock, although we shall not take that long.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There a few rules, and they include brief interventions.

Mr. Janner: I have a brief question. Would the Minister be good enough to come with me to the school one day to see it for himself? I cordially invite him to get out of Westminster, away from his office. I assure him that he will get a much better reception than I did 23 years ago, during my first general election campaign, when I was booed in the playground. That does not happen any more, and the Minister will be well received if he comes.

Mr. Vaz: And we will buy him lunch.

Mr. Boswell: Even without that improper inducement, I am always interested in invitations such as that seductive one from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He may be aware that my colleagues and I, although I have other responsibilities in the Department, visit schools on a regular basis and have done so more than 100 times in the last calendar year. I have noted his invitation, and if he would care to put it into writing, I shall see whether I can respond to it. The schools are not all that far from my constituency. We shall see what we can do, but I am not going to commit myself to that, let alone promise a complete recasting of the rules in this case.
I believe that the governors of both schools are being consulted on a number of options, including rebuilding on the same site, or a new site or sites. A number of possible sites have been identified. Clearly, the matter now rests in the hands of the county and the governors.
Let me conclude by saying—the hon. and learned Gentleman has acknowledged this—that the Government are committed to improving the conditions of school buildings. We have provided LEAs with considerable

resources in the past few years for them to do so. LEAs spent over £2 billion on school buildings between 1986–87 and 1989–90. Much of this will have gone on remedying deficiencies such as those at the Dovelands schools. In addition, we estimate that LEAs will spend a further £2·5 billion on schools between 1990–91 and 1993–94.
Clearly, the position at the Dovelands schools is unsatisfactory, but, at this stage, it is really a matter for the LEA and the governors. We have provided generous capital support for Leicestershire over the years. In particular, we have provided support for urgent work to renovate the premises of a number of Leicester city schools. The county has the resources available and the flexibility to put right the problems at the Dovelands schools if that is regarded locally as a priority.
Therefore, it is important that the LEA and the schools come to a decision on what precisely they need to do to tackle the problems. That is a matter for them. No doubt the hon. and learned Member will be pressing the LEA as hard and eloquently as he has pressed me tonight on this. There are a number of options open to the LEA. The county can submit a bid for unallocated SCAs during the current financial year. Any such bid would be treated on its merits.
It is also open to the LEA to bid for capital support for work at the schools as part of the normal round of bidding for annual capital guidelines for 1994–95. Any such bids will be considered carefully against the detailed criteria set out in our annual bidding letter to LEAs, which will be issued shortly.
I have listened carefully to arguments put by the hon. and learned Member and the hon. Member. I understand and share the concern that they and those associated with the schools must feel, but the onus now is on the county to decide how the problems are to be rectified and when, and to give the work concerned the necessary priority. The system is in place, and, according to the decisions they take, we are in a position to respond to it, in accordance with those provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eight o'clock.